,1  t\xt  lhea%far  ^ 


PRINCETON,    N.    J. 

Division . . .  XJv— /  .^  w  W  O 

Sec.:,, .4.....NSS2 

5/^^^. Number |. 


GENUINENESS    OF    THE    GOSPELS. 


THE 


EYIBEN.aiJS^ 


^  -^TpN.  M^^^• 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE   GOSPELS. 


Br  ANDREWS  NORTON. 


9btilisell  diitian. 


BOSTON: 

AMERICAN    UNITARIAN   ASSOCIATION. 
1875. 


Altered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1867,  by 

THB  AMERICAN  T7NITARIAK  ASSOCIATION, 

Ib  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  District  of  Massachusetts. 


FOURTH  EDITION. 


CAUBBICOB  : 
PRESS  OP  JOHN  WILSON  AND  BOH. 


EDITOEIAL    NOTE. 


The  present  edition  of  "  The  Evidences  of  the  Genuineness 
of  the  Gospels"  contains  the  whole  of  the  original  work, 
^^ith  the  exception  of  such  portions  as  might  be  omitted 
without  essential  injury  to  the  force  of  its  main  argu- 
ment. 

The  omissions  chiefly  consist  of  passages  addressed  rather 
to  the  scholar  than  to  the  general  reader;  and  they  have 
been  the  more  readily  made,  from  the  belief  that  any  stu- 
dent who  might  be  desirous  of  following  the  author  in  his 
investigation  of  the  subject  in  its  more  obscure,  collateral 
developments,  might,  without  much  difficulty,  obtain  a  copy 
of  the  work  in  its  original  form.  For  the  information  of  the 
reader,  a  list  of  the  principal  omissions  is  hereto  appended. 

C.  E.  N 


LIST  OF  THE   PRINCIPAL  OMISSIONS  IN  THE 
PRESENT   EDITION. 


ORIGINAL  EDITION.  — Vol.  I. 

Note.  (pp.  110-126.)*  —  On  some  opinions  and  arguments  of 
Eichhorn,  and  other  German  theologians. 

Additional  Notes. 

Note  A.  (pp.  iii.-xxxiv.)  —  Sect.  I.  Introductory  statement. — 
Sect.  II.  On  the  systematic  classification  of  the  copies  of  the  New 
Testament,  adopted  by  Griesbach  and  others ;  and  the  language  con- 
cerning the  diversities  among  those  copies  with  which  it  has  been 
connected. 

Note  B.  (pp.  xcviii.-ci.)  —  Various  readings  of  the  copies  of  the 
Gospels  extant  in  the  time  of  Origen,  which  are  particularly  noticed 
by  him. 

Note  C.  (pp.  cii.-cv.)  —  Undisputed  interpolations  in  manuscripts 
of  the  Gospels. 

Note  E.     (pp.  ccxiv.-ccxxxviii.)  —  Justin  Martyr's  quotations. 

Vol.  II. — Additional  Notes. 

Note  A.  (pp.  iii.-xxiii.)  —  On  the  statue  which  is  said,  by  Justin 
Martyr  and  others,  to  have  been  erected  at  Rome  to  Simon  Magus. 

Note  B.    (pp.  xxiv.-xxxvi.)  —  On  the  Clementine  Homilies. 

Note  C.  (pp.  xxxvii.-xlvii.)  —  On  the  false  charges  brought 
against  the  heretics,  particularly  by  the  later  fathers. 

Note  D.  (pp.  xlvii.-cciv.)  —  On  the  Jewish  dispensation,  the 
Pentateuch,  and  tfie  other  books  of  the  Old  Testament. 

*  The  paging  referred  to  is  that  of  the  second  edition:  Cambridj;e,  1848. 


Vlll  OMISSIONS  IN  THE  PRESENT  EDITION. 


Vol.  III. 

Chap.  VIT.  (pp.  3-66.) — On  the  system  of  the  Gnostics,  as 
intended  for  a  solution  of  the  existence  of  evil  in  the  world. 

Chap.  VIII.  (pp.  67-168.)  —  On  the  peculiar  speculations  of  the 
theosophic  Gnostics. 

Chap.  IX.  (pp.  169-181.)  — On  the  opinions  of  the  Gnostics 
concerning  the  person  of  Christ. 

Chap.  X.  (pp.  182-186.)  —  On  the  opinions  of  the  Gnostics  re- 
specting the  design  of  Christianity. 

Additional  Notes. 

Note  A.  (pp.  iii.-xxxv.)  —  On  the  distinction  made  by  tne 
ancients  between  things  intelligible  and  things  sensible ;  on  the  use  of 
the  terms  spiritual  and  material  as  applied  to  their  speculations ;  and 
on  the  nature  of  matter. 

Note  B.     (pp.  xxxvi.-xlr.)  —  On  Basilides  and  the  Basilidians. 

Note  C.     (pp.  xlvi.-lx.)  —  On  the  Gospel  of  Marcion. 

Note  D.  (pp.  Ixi.-lxxvii.)  —  On  the  use  of  the  words  Oedf  and 
DeM, 


COISTTENTS. 


EDITORIAL  NOTE. 

Pao« 


HI 


Note " 

List  of  the  Pkincipal  Omissions  in  the  pkesent  edition     iv 

XNTRODUCTION. 

STATEMENT    OF  THE   CASE 1 

What  is  meant  by  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  1.  —  Early 
testimony  to  their  genuineness  has  been  affirmed  to  be  want- 
ing, 1-5.  —  Theory  of  Eichhorn  respecting  the  formation  of 
the  first  three  Gospels,  and  of  other  gospels  supposed  to  have 
been  in  use  before  those  now  received,  by  successive  additions 
of  transcribers  to  the  text  of  an  Original  Gospel,  5-10. — 
Remarks,  10,  11. 


PART    I. 

PROOF  THAT  THE  GOSPELS  REMAIN  ESSENTIALLY 
THE  SAME  AS  THEY  WERE  ORIGINALLY  COM- 
POSED   1^ 

CHAPTER  I. 

Argument  from  the  Agreement  of  the  respective  Copies 
OP  THE  Four  Gospels 1^ 

The  proposition  that  the  Gospels  remain  essentially  the  same 
explained,  15-19.  —  They  have  suffered,  like  all  other  ancient 
writings,  from  the  accidents  of  transcription,  15,  16.  —  Pas- 


X  CONTENTS. 

PAfia 

sages  in  the  Received  Text  that  may  be  regarded  as  spurious 
or  suspicious,  16-19.  —  Proof  that  the  Gospels  remain  essen- 
tialJy  the  same  as  they  were  originally  composed  from  the 
agreement  among  the  present  copies  of  them,  19-24.  —  This 
agreement  not  to  be  accounted  for  bj'  supposing  any  arche- 
types for  our  present  copies  of  the  Gospels  other  than  the 
original  exemplars,  24-27.  —  Argument  from  the  agreement 
among  the  copies  of  the  Gospels  extant  at  the  end  of  the 
second  century,  27-34. 

CHAPTER  n. 

Arguments  drawn  from  other  Considerations     ....    83 

From  the  high  value  ascribed  to  the  Gospels  by  the  Christians 
of  the  first  two  centuries,  35-41. — From  their  strong  censure 
of  the  mutilations  and  changes  which  they  charge  some 
heretics,  particularly  Marcion,  with  having  made  in  tlie  text 
of  the  Gospels,  42. — From  the  character  of  the  various  read- 
ings in  Origen's  manuscripts  of  the  Gospels,  particularly 
mentioned  or  referred  to  by  him,  42-47.  —  From  the  notices 
of  various  readings  in  other  ancient  writers,  47.  —  From  the 
striking  characteristics  of  the  respective  Gospels  being  pre- 
served throughout  in  all  of  them,  showing  that  each  is 
essentially  the  work  of  an  individual  author,  48-50. — Par- 
ticularly from  their  being  written  throughout  in  Hebraistic 
Greek,  50-52.  —  From  their  not  betraying  marks  of  a  later 
age  than  that  assigned  for  their  composition,  or  incongruities 
with  the  character  and  circumstances  of  their  supposed 
authors,  52,  53. — From  their  consistency  in  their  representa- 
tions of  the  character  of  Christ,  53,  54.  —  Summary  of  pre- 
ceding arguments,  54,  55.  —  Particular  remarks  on  the  Gospel 
of  Matthew,  55-57.  —  Conclusion,  57,  58. 

CHAPTER  m. 

Objections  considered 59 

General  remarks,  59,  60.  —  The  theory  of  the  corruption  of  the 
Gospels  as  connected  with  that  of  an  Original  Gospel  from 
which  the  first  three,  in  common  with  many  apocryphal  gos- 
pels, were  derived,  remarked  upon,  60-62.  —  Assertion  of 
Eichhorn  respecting  arbitrary  alterations  in  manuscripts  be- 


CONTENTS.  XI 

Taob 
fore  the  invention  of  printing,  62,  63. — Examination  of  a 
passage  from  Celsus,  63-65.  —  Of  a  passage  from  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  65-67.  —  Conclusion,  67. 


PART    II. 

DIRECT  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCE  THAT  THE  GOS- 
PELS HAVE  BEEN  ASCRIBED  TO  THEIR  TRUE 
AUTHORS 69 

CHAPTER  L 

EviDEXCE    FROM    THE    GENERAL   RECEPTION    OF    THE    GoSPELS 

AS  Genuine  among  Christians  during  the  Last  Quarter 
OF  the  Second  Century 71 

The  proposition  that  they  were  so  received  generally  admitted, 
71.  —  Evidence  of  it  from  Irenseus,  71-74.— From  Theophi- 
lus,  74,  75.  — From  TertuUian,  75-77.  — From  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  77,  78.  —  From  Celsus,  78-81.  —  From  Origen, 
81-83.  —  Remarks  on  this  evidence.  The  Christian  writers 
adduced  do  not  testify  merely  to  their  individual  belief,  but 
speak  in  the  name  of  the  whole  community  to  which  they 
belonged,  83,  84.  —  The  testimony  to  the  genuineness  of  the 
Gospels  is,  therefore,  of  a  peculiar  character,  84,  85.  —  Chris- 
tians, at  the  period  in  question,  were  fully  able  to  determine 
whether  the  Gospels  were  genuine  or  not,  85-87.  —  They 
were  deeply  interested  in  the  question,  87,  88.  —  Character  of 
the  Christians  of  that  age,  88,  89.  —  Throughout  this  commu- 
nity the  Gospels  were  received  as  genuine,  89.  —  Confirma- 
tion of  their  testimony  to  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels 
from  the  fact  of  the  unquestionable  genuineness  of  most  of 
the  other  books  of  the  New  Testament  universally  received 
by  them,  and  the  probable  genuineness  of  all,  89-91.  —  The 
belief  of  Christians  in  their  religion  was  a  belief  of  the 
truths  contained  in  the  Gospels,  and  therefore  identified  with 
a  belief  of  their  authenticity,  and  consequently  of  their 
genuineness,  91-93.  —  The  fact  of  the  general  reception  of 
the  Gospels  at  the  period  in  question,  considered  in  itself,  is 
to  be  accounted  for  only  on  the  supposition  of  their  genuine- 
ness, 93.  —  The  truth  of  this  proposition  may  be  particularly 


XU  CONTENTS. 

Fags 

shown,  as  regards  the  first  three  Gospels,  by  a  consideration 
of  the  remarkable  phenomena  which  they  present  in  their 
correspondences  with,  and  differences  from,  one  another,  93, 
94.  —  Supposing  the  first  three  Gospels  not  to  be  works  of 
the  apostolic  age,  those  phenomena  cannot  be  explained 
consistently  with  the  fact  of  their  common  reception  among 
Christians :  either  by  the  supposition  that  the  evangelists 
copied  one  from  another,  94-96;  or  that  they  made  use  of 
a  common  written  document  or  documents,  96-98 ;  or  that 
they  all  founded  their  narratives  on  oral  tradition,  98-100.— 
The  phenomena,  therefore,  admit  of  no  solution,  if  we  sup- 
pose the  first  three  Gospels  to  have  been  written  after  the 
apostolic  age,  100.  —  Observations  upon  this  fact,  100.  —  The 
four  Gospels,  if  they  were  not  the  works  of  the  authors  to 
whom  they  are  ascribed,  could  never  have  been  acknowledged 
and  received  as  such  by  the  Christian  community,.100,  101. 
—  Their  reception  not  the  result  of  any  concert  among  leading 
Christians,  101, 102.  — Names  of  their  authors  not  arbitrarily 
assigned,  otherwise  Matthew's  Gospel  would  have  been 
ascribed  to  a  more  distinguished  apostle,  and  those  of  Mark 
and  Luke  to  apostles,  102.  —  The  discrepances  among  the 
four  Gospels  would  have  prevented  the  reception  of  all  as 
of  equal  authority,  had  they  not  been  handed  down  together 
from  the  apostolic  age,  102-105.  —  The  genuineness  of  any 
one  of  the  Gospels  creates  a  strong  presumption  in  favor  of 
the  genuineness  of  the  other  three,  105-107.  —  The  Gospels 
were  composed  among  the  Jewish  Christians,  but  descend  to 
us  through  the  Gentile  Christians,  who  would  not  have  re- 
ceived from  the  former,  after  the  apostolic  age,  four  spurious 
histories  of  Christ,  written  by  unlearned  Jews  in  a  style 
regarded  by  native  Greeks  as  barbarous,  107-110.  —  The 
reverence  for  the  Gospels  at  the  end  of  the  second  century 
implies  their  celebrity  at  a  much  earlier  period,  110,  111.  — 
Summary,  111,  112. 


CHAPTER  n. 

Evidence  to  be  derived  from  the  Writings  op  Justin 
Martyr 113 

Account  of  Justin  and  his  writings,  113,  114.  —  Three  objec- 
tions which  have  been  made  to  the  supposition  that  he  quoted 


CONTENTS.  Xiii 

Pagb 
the  Gospels,  114,  115.  —  Answer  to  the  first  objection,  that 
he  does  not  quote  the  Gospels  by  their  present  titles,  115-119. 
—  Answer  to  the  second  objection,  that  there  is  a  want  of 
verbal  coincidence  between  his  quotations  and  the  correspond- 
ing passages  in  the  Gospels,  119-125.  —  Answer  to  the  third 
objection,  that  he  quotes  passages  respecting  Christ  not  found 
in  the  Gospels,  125-132.  —  Proof  that  Justin  used  our  present 
Gospels  :  From  the  agreement  in  thought  and  words  between 
his  quotations  and  passages  in  the  Gospels,  and  the  great  im- 
probability that  those  quotations  should  have  been  taken  from 
any  other  book,  132-135.  —  From  the  fact,  that  there  is  no 
intimation  to  the  contrary  in  any  subsequent  writer,  135. — 
From  the  manner  in  which  he  mentions  and  describes  the 
books  which  he  quotes,  135, 136.  —  From  the  manner  in  which 
he  speaks  of  the  high  authority  and  general  reception  among 
Christians  of  those  books,  answering  to  the  manner  in  which 
his  contemporary,  Irenaeus,  speaks  of  the  Gospels ;  and  from 
the  fact,  that  such  books  as  Justin  describes  and  quotes  could  . 
not  have  disappeared  and  been  forgotten  immediately  after  he 
wrote,  as  must  have  been  the  case  if  they  were  not  the  Gos- 
pels, 136,  137. 

CHAPTER  in. 

Etidencb  op  Papias.     St.  Luke's  own  Testimony  to  the 
Genuineness  of  his  Gospel 138 

Scarcity  of  the  remains  of  Christian  writers  during  the  first 
half  of  the  second  century,  138.  —  Remarks  on  the  evidence 
of  Papias,  139.  —  On  St.  Luke's  testimony  to  his  own  Gospel, 
139,  140.  —  This,  likewise,  tends  to  prove  the  genuineness  of 
the  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Mark,  140. — And  of  all  the 
other  three  Gospels,  141.  —  And  particularly,  in  connection 
with  the  evidence  of  Papias,  the  genuineness  of  that  of  John, 
141,  142. 

CHAPTER  rV. 

Concluding    Remarks   on    the   Direct    Historical    Evi- 
dence OF  THE  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels 143 

No  testimony  of  the  same  character,  or  of  the  same  weight, 
can  be  produced  for  the  genuineness  of  any  other  ancient 


XIV  CONTENTS. 

Pags 
work,  143, 144, — But,  putting  out  of  view  the  peculiar  nature 
and  value  of  the  testimony  to  their  genuineness,  their  univer- 
sal reception  by  catholic  Christians  can  be  accounted  for  only 
by  the  fact,  that  they  had  been  handed  down  from  the  begin- 
ning with  the  character  which  they  afterwards  bore,  144,  145. 
—  Comparison  of  the  evidence  of  the  genuineness  of  the 
Gospels  with  that  of  the  genuineness  of  ancient  classical 
writings,  146.  —  Objection  to  it  on  the  ground  that  the  con- 
tents of  one  Gospel  are  irreconcilable  with  those  of  another, 
146.  —  Objection  on  the  ground  of  the  miraculous  char- 
acter of  the  history  contained  in  the  Gospels,  146,  147. — 
This  objection  destructive  of  all  religion,  147,  148.  —  But  has 
no  bearing  to  disprove  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  148, 
149.  —  Remarks  on  the  present  state  of  belief  in  Christianity, 
149-151. 

PART     III. 

ON  THE  EVIDENCE  FOR  THE  GENUINENESS  OF 
THE  GOSPELS  AFFORDED  BY  THE  EARLY  HERE- 
TICS         ....  163 

CHAPTER   I. 

Preliminary  Remarks.  —  The  Ebionites.  —  Their  Use  of 
THE  Gospel  of  Matthew  only.  —  Inferences  from  their 

NOT   USING    THE    OTHER   THREE    GoSPELS    . 155 

CHAPTER  n. 
General  Account  of  the   Gnostics. —  State   of   Opinion 

AMONG    THE    GREAT   BODY    OF    CHRISTIANS    DURING    THE    SEC- 
OND Century 160 

Meaning  of  the  word  "  Gnostic,"  160.  —  General  notice  of  the 
Gnostics,  and  of  the  value  of  their  evidence,  160-163. — 
Acquaintance  with  their  history  and  doctrines  necessary  in 
order  to  estimate  its  value,  163.  —  Incidental  bearings  of  the 
inquiry  into  tlieir  history  and  doctrines,  163-170.  —  The 
Gnostics  divided  into  the  Marcionites  and  the  TheO- 
SOPHIC  Gnostics,  170.  —  The  Valentinians,  the  principal 
representatives  of  the  theosophic  Gnostics,  170.  —  Doctrines 


CONTENTS.  XT 

Pagb 
common  to  the  Gnostics  generally,  170-174. — Notice  of  the 
doctrines  peculiar  to  the  theosophic  Gnostics,  174,  175. — 
These,  from  various  causes,  diflficult  to  be  ascertained  and 
understood,  175-177.  —  Imperfect  and  erroneous  accounts  of 
the  Gnostics  given  by  the  fathers,  175-179.  —  Method  to  be 
pursued  in  determining  the  facts  concerning  them,  179.  — 
Errors  of  modern  writers,  179-184.  —  Separation  of  the 
Gnostics  and  Ebionites  from  the  catholic  Christians,  184-186. 

—  State  of  opinion  among  the  catholic  Christians,  186,  187. 

—  Aversion  to  Judaism,  the  principal  occasion  of  Gnosti- 
cism, 188. 

CHAPTER  m. 

On   the  External   History   op   the    Gnostics,   and   the 
Sources  of  Information  concerning  them 189 

Story  of  Irenaeus,  and  other  fathers,  that  Simon  Magus  was  the 
author  of  the  Gnostic  heresy,  189.  —  Account  of  Simon  Ma- 
gus, 189-195.  —  Notice  of  other  supposed  heretics  of  the  first 
century,  195,  196.  —  Of  Cerinthus,  196-200.  —  Gnostics  not 
referred  to  in  the  undisputed  books  of  the  New  Testament, 
200-203.  —  Did  not  appear  before  the  earlier  part  of  the 
second  century,  203,  204.  —  Date  assigned  to  the  principal 
Gnostic  sects  by  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Irenaeus,  Justin 
Martyr,  and  Tertullian,  204,  205.  —  Those  sects  all  mentioned 
by  Justin  Martyr,  205,  206.  —  The  work  of  Irenaeus  Against 
Heretics,  206,  207.  —  Other  works  affording  information  re- 
specting the  Valentinians,  207-209.  —  TertuUian's  work 
against  Marcion,  and  other  writings  concerning  the  Marcion- 
ites,  209,  210.  —  The  earlier  fathers  to  be  chiefly  relied  on  as 
respects  the  Gnostics,  210. — Distinction  between  the  earlier 
and  the  later  fathers,  210,  211.  —  The  later  fathers  who  have 
given  accounts  of  them,  211-215.  —  Epiphanius,  211.  —  The 
author  of  the  Dialogue  De  Recta  Fide,  212.  — Philaster,  212. 

—  Augustin,  212,  213.  —  Theodoret,  213,  214.  — Other  wri- 
ters, particularly  Eusebius,  215.  —  Notices  of  the  Gnostics 
by  Celsus,  215.  —  Notices  of  the  Gnostics,  and  of  individuals 
holding  Gnostic  opinions,  by  Plotinus  and  Porphyry,  215-218. 

—  Plotinus  refers  primarily  to  heathens,  217,  218.  —  Remarks 
on  preceding  statements,  218.  —  Origin  and  decline  of  the 
Gnostics,  219,  220.  —  Their  number  when  most  flourishing, 
220-223. 


XVi  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  rV. 

Page 
On  the  Morals  of  the  Gnostics,   and   their   Imperfect 
Conceptions  of  Christianity 224 

Character  of  the  catholic  Christians  in  the  second  century,  224. 

—  Two  classes  of  Gnostics;  one  strict,  and  the  other  licen 
tious,  in  their  morals,  224-232.  —  Charges  of  licentiousness 
against  a  portion  of  the  theosophic  Gnostics  not  unfounded, 
225-232.  —  Peculiar  causes  of  the  existence  of  immorality, 
and  ignorance  of  the  character  and  requirements  of  Chris- 
tianity, among  a  portion  of  its  early  converts,  232-249 :  — 
the  influence  of  the  vices  and  idolatry  of  the  heathen  world, 
233-236;  —  the  misunderstanding  and  perversion  of  Chris- 
tian truths,  particularly  as  expressed  by  St.  Paul,  236-239;  — 
the  great  change  in  men's  religious  belief  effected  by  Chris- 
tianity, 239-243; — the  imperfect  means  that  many  had  of 
becoming  acquainted  with  Christianity,  243-245  ;  —  false 
teachers  receiving  money  from  their  disciples,  and  in  other 
respects  of  like  character  with  the  ancient  sophists,  245-249. 

—  Digression  on  the  divinity  of  Christianity,  248.  —  The 
immorality  and  irreligion  resulting  from  these  causes  de- 
scribed by  St.  Paul,, 249,  250;  — also  in  the  Second  Epistle 
of  Peter  (so  called),  and  the  Epistle  of  Jude  (so  called),  250- 
252;— and  in  the  Apocalypse,  252,  253.— Why  these  im- 
moralities finally  settled  down  among  a  portion  of  the 
Gnostics,  253-255.  —  The  licentious  class  of  Gnostics  escaped 
that  persecution  by  which  the  catholic  Christians  were  puri- 
fied, 255-258.  —  Principles  and  practice  of  the  better  class  of 
Gnostics  respecting  martyrdom,  258,  259.  —  Those  of  the 
catholic  Christians,  259-263.  —  General  remarks  on  the  moral 
and  religious  character  of  the  Gnostics,  263-266. 


CHAPTER  V. 

Ow  SOME  Pseudo-Christian  Sects  and  Individuals  who 
have  been  improperly  confounded  with  the  Gnos- 
tics   267 

The  fact  that  the  Gnostics  have  been  confounded  with  sects  not 
Christian  is  evident  from  their  origin  being  referred  to  Simon 


CONTENTS.  Xvii 

Paob 

Magus,  neither  Simon  nor  his  followers  being  Christians,  267. 
—  Other  pseudo-Cliristian  sects,  with  whom  they  have  been 
confounded,  267-291 :  —  the  Carpocratians,  267-275; — pseudo- 
Christians  maintaining  that  the  practice  of  scandalous  immoralities 
was  a  religious  duty,  275,  276  ;  —  a  subordinate  set  of  Gnostics, 
the  existence  of  which  is  pretended  by  Epiphanius,  and  to 
which  he  gives  the  name  of  "  Gnostics,"  used,  not  as  a  generic, 
but  a  specific,  name,  276-279 ;  —  (the  Gospel  of  Eve ; )  pantheis- 
tic pseudo-Christians,  279-283;  —  the  Ophians  or  Ophites,  283- 
291.  —  Causes  of  the  existence  of  such  pseudo-Christians, 
291,292.  —  How  the  Gnostics  came  to  be  confounded  with 
them,  292,  293. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

On  Gnosticism,  considered  as  a  Sepabation  op  Judaism 
FROM  Christianity 294 

The  opinions  of  the  Gnostics  concerning  the  Old  Testament, 
294-298.  —  Correspondence  between  their  opinions  and  those 
of  the  early  catholic  Christians,  298.  —  Views  of  the  author 
of  the  Clementine  Homilies,  298,  299.  —Modes  by  which  the 
catholic  Christians  solved  the  difficulties  which  they  felt  in 
the  Old  Testament,  299-315 :  — they  applied  to  the  Logos 
those  representations  of  God  in  the  Old  Testament  which  they 
thought  unworthy  of  God,  299-303 ;  — Tertullian's  notion, 
that  it  was  characteristic  of  the  dispensations  of  God  to  use 
means  ignoble  and  foolish  in  the  eyes  of  men,  303,  304 ;  —  the 
fathers  generally  solved  the  difficulties  of  the  Old  Testament 
by  the  allegorical  mode  of  interpretation,  305-315.  —  This 
mode  of  interpretation  rejected  by  the  Marcionites,  and  not 
thus  applied  to  the  Old  Testament  by  the  theosophic  Gnostics, 
316.  —  The  proper  Christian  Gnostics  regarded  it  as  impossi- 
ble, that  the  God  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  God  of 
Christians  should  be  the  same  being,  316,  317.  — The  extra- 
ordinary character  of  the  fact,  that  the  catholic  Christians 
adopted  the  notions  of  the  Jews  respecting  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, 317-319.  —  The  fundamental  difference  between  them 
and  the  Gnostics  consisted  in  their  different  opinions  con- 
cerning Judaism  and  the  author  of  the  Jewish  dispensation, 
319. 


XVlll  CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  Vn. 

Pagb 
Ow  THE  Manner  in  which  the  Gnostics  reconciled  their 
Doctrines  with  Christianity 320 

Discrepance  between  the  doctrines  of  the  Gnostics  and  the 
teaching  of  Christ  such  as  may  lead  one  at  first  view  to  sus- 
pect that  they  held  the  Gospels  in  no  esteem,  320.  —  But 
a  similar  discrepance  has  existed  between  the  doctrines  of  a 
great  majority  of  professed  Christians  and  the  teaching  of 
Clirist,  320-322.  —  Prevalence  of  religious  error,  322.  — 
Faith,  in  consequence,  disconnected  from  reason,  and  founded 
on  a  pretended  intuitive  discernment  of  spiritual  things,  323. 
—  Prevalent  errors  respecting  the  character  and  interpretation 
of  the  Scriptures,  323-325.  —  Means  by  which  the  Gnostics, 
in  particular,  reconciled  their  doctrines  with  their  Christian 
faith,  326-338  :  —  allegorical  and  other  false  modes  of  inter- 
pretation used  by  the  theosophic  Gnostics,  326,  327  ;  —  their 
appeal  to  a  secret  oral  tradition,  by  which  they  contended  that 
the  esoteric  doctrines  of  Christianity  had  been  preserved, 
327-332 ;  —  (the  notion  of  such  a  tradition  equaHy  maintained 
by  Clement  of  Alexandria,  328-331 ;  —  to  be  distinguished 
from  the  public  traditionary  knowledge  of  Christianity  as- 
serted by  other  fathers,  329-331  n, ;  —  and  also  from  the 
fundamental  doctrine  of  the  Koman  Catholic  Church  con- 
cerning the  authority  of  tradition,  331  n.) ;  —  the  notion  of 
the  Gnostics  concerning  the  apostles  and  Christ,  that  they 
accommodated  tlieir  doctrine  to  the  capacity  of  their  hearers, 
not  openly  teaching  the  more  mysterious  truths  of  rehgion, 
331,  332 ;  —  another  opinion,  that  the  apostles  generally, 
through  the  influence  of  their  Jewish  prejudices,  were  led 
into  errors,  and  did  not  discern  all  the  truth ;  St.  Paul,  how- 
ever, being  regarded  as  much  the  most  enlightened  of  their 
number,  332,  333 ;  —  opinion  that  the  teacliings  of  Christ 
were  not  all  of  equal  authority,  334;  —  (remarks  on  the  no- 
tions of  the  Gnostics  respecting  the  apostles,  334,  335 ;  — 
on  their  pretence  to  infallible  knowledge,  335-337)  ;  —  pecu- 
liar case  of  the  Marcionites  in  appealing  only  to  their  muti- 
lated copies  of  the  Gospel  of  Luke  and  of  ten  of  the  Epistlea 
of  St.  Paul,  337.  —  Apparent  from  what  precedes,  that  the 
Gnostics  could  have  appealed  to  no  history  of  Christ  at  van- 


CONTENTS.  XIX 

Paoi 

ance  with  the  four  Gospels,  338. — But  the  subject  admits 
of  further  explanation,  338,  339. 


CHAPTER  Vni. 

On  the  Question,  whether  the  Gnostics  opposed  to  thb 
FOUR  Gospels  ant  other  written  Histories  or  History 
OF  Christ's  Ministry 34G 

This  question  leads  to  a  general  review  of  those  books  which 
have  been  called  apocryphal  gospels,  340,  341.  —  Considera- 
tions to  be  attended  to  in  this  examination,  342-346. — Had 
the  Gnostics  opposed  any  other  history  of  Christ  to  the  four 
Gospels,  we  should  have  had  full  information  of  the  fact, 

342,  343. — But  no  evidence  of  such  a  fact  appears  in  Irenajus 
or  Tertullian,  the  two  principal  writers  against  the  Gnostics, 

343.  —  It  is  not  probable  that  the  ancient  books  which  may 
be  properly  called  apocryphal  gospels  were  histories  of  Christ's 
ministry,  but  books  giving  the  views  of  the  writer  concerning 
the  doctrines  of  Christianity,  343-345.  —  No  apocryphal  gos- 
pel mentioned  by  Tertullian,  345,  346.  —  Irenaeus  once  speaks 
of  a  book  called  The  True  Gospel  as  in  use  among  the  Valen- 
tinians,  346,  347.  —  If  there  were  such  a  book,  it  was  not  an 
historical  gospel,  347.  —  Its  existence  doubtful;  and,  if  such 
a  book  existed,  it  was  a  work  of  no  notoriety,  and  one  to 
which  the  Valentinians,  in  general,  attached  no  importance, 
347,  348.  —  Irenaeus  mentions  one  other  supposed  book.  The 
Gospel  of  Judas,  of  which  he  ascribes  the  use  to  a  sect  called 
Cainites ;  but  the  existence  of  the  sect  or  of  the  book  is 
altogether  improbable,  348-350.  —  This  is  all  the  information 
concerning  apocryphal  gospels  to  be  derived  from  the  two 
principal  writers  against  the  Gnostics,  350,  351.  —  Excepting 
the  story  of  Irenaeus  about  The  True  Gospel,  there  is  no 
charge  by  any  writer  against  the  Valentinians,  or  the  Mar- 
cionites,  of  using  apocryphal  gospels,  unless  Marcion's 
mutilated  copy  of  Luke  be  so  called,  351.  —  Nor  against  tho 
Basilidians,  before  the  author  of  the  Homilies  on  Luke,  351. 

—  He,  and  others  subsequently,  speak  of  a  Gospel  of  Basili- 
des,  351,  352. — No  probability  that  such  a  book  existed,  352. 

—  The  notion  of  its  existence  probably  had  its  origin  in  the 
feet,  that  Basilides  wrote  a  Commentary  on  the  four  Gospels, 
852,  353.  —  Remarks  on  the  preceding  facts,  363.  —  Clement 


XX  CONTENTS. 

of  Alexandria  mentions  The  Gospel  according  to  the  EgyptianSy 
353,  354.  —  Account  of  this  book,  354-358.  —  No  other  apocry- 
phal gospel  mentioned  by  Clement,  unless  the  Gospel  of  the 
Hebrews  be  so  named,  358,  359.  — But  he  speaks  of  a  book 
called  The  Traditions^  which  has  been  imagined  to  be  the  same 
with  The  Gospel  according  to  Matthias,  360.  —  Account  of  this 
book,  360.  —  Of  the  title  of  The  Gospel  according  to  Matthias, 
361,  362.  —  r/ie  Gospel  of  Peter,  362.  — Account  of  this  book, 
362-365.  —  Origen,  in  his  undisputed  works,  mentions  no 
other  apocryphal  book  entitled  a  gospel,  besides  this,  365, 
866.  —  Notices  of  supposed  apocryphal  gospels  by  the  author 
of  the  Homilies  on  Luke,  and  by  Eusebius,  366.  —  General 
remarks  on  the  apocryphal  gospels,  366-370. — Not  commonly 
written  with  a  fraudulent  design,  867,  368.  —  Very  little 
notice  taken  of  them  in  ancient  times,  368-370.  —  Late 
apocryphal  gospels,  370.  —  The  Protevangelion  of  \Tames,  and 
other  gospels  of  the  Nativity,  so  called,  370-374.  —  Fables  re- 
specting Joseph  and  Mary,  871-374.  —  The  gospels  of  the 
Infancy,  so  called,  374-379.  —  Fables  respecting  the  infancy 
and  childhood  of  our  Lord,  374-378.  —  Account  of  The  Gos- 
pel of  Nicodemus,  so  called,  379-383  n.  —  Remarks  on  the 
fables  concerning  our  Lord  and  concerning  Mary,  880-384. 
—  Conclusion  from  the  preceding  statements,  885.  —  Subject 
resumed,  885.  —  Certain  gospels,  imagined  to  have  been  used 
by  Tatian  in  forming  his  Diatessaron,  385-387.  —  Pretended 
Gospd  of  Cerinthus,  887-889.  —  Concluding  remarks.  Mis- 
takes that  have  been  committed  concerning  apocryphal  gos- 
pels, 389-^91. 

CHAPTER  IX. 

Concluding  Statement  of  the  Evidence  fob  the  Genu- 
ineness OF  the  Gospels  afforded  by  the  Gnostics  .    .  392 

General  view,  892. — Evidence  particularly  aflforded  by  the  Mar- 
cionites,  892,  393. — Evidence  particularly  afforded  by  the 
theosophic  Gnostics,  393-396.  —  Striking  proof  from  Tertul- 
lian  of  the  abundant  use  of  the  Gospels  made  by  the  Gnostics, 
397-400.  —  No  history  of  Christ's  ministry  at  variance  with 
the  four  Gospels  known  by  the  early  Christians,  401.  —  Re- 
marks on  the  supposition,  that  the  Gnostics  appealed  to  the 
Gospels  only  by  way  of  reasoning  ad  Iiominem  with  the  catho- 
lic ChriBtians,  401^404.— Concluding  remarks,  405-413. 


CONTENTS.  XXI 

ADDITIONAL    NOTES. 

NOTE  A. 

Paoi 
Further  Bemarks  on  the  Present  State  op  the  Text 
OF  THE  Gospels  417 

Section  I. 
On  the  Character  and  Importance  of  the  Various  Readings  of 
the  New  Testament 417 

Section  II. 
On  the  Original  Language  of  Matthew's  Gospel,  and  its  Use  by 
the  Hebrew  Christians 425 

Section  III. 
On  some  Passages  in  the  Received  Text  of  the  Gospels,  of 
which  the  Genuineness  is  doubtful 431 

I. 

The  first  Two  Chapters  of  the  present  Greek  Gospel  of  Mat- 
thew  431 

n. 

Matthew,  chap,  xxvii.  3-10.     (Account  of  the  repentance  and 
death  of  Judas) 437 

III. 
Matthew,  chap,  xxvii.  part  of  ver.  52  and  53.     (Account  of 

the  rising  of  the  bodies  of  many  saints  at  our  Saviour's  death)  441 
Marginal  note  on  Matthew,  chap.  xii.  40.     (The  sign  of  Jonah)  442 

IV. 

The  Conclusion  of  Mark's  Gospel.     (Chap.  xvi.  9-20)      .    .    .  443 

V. 
Luke,  chap.  ix.  55,  56.     (Our  Lord's  reproof  of  James  and 
John,  when  they  proposed  calling  down  fire  from  heaven  on 
a  village  of  Samaritans) 449 


XXU  CONTENTS. 

Taob 

VI. 

Luke,  chap.  xxii.  43,  44.    (The  account  of  the  agony  and 
bloody  sweat  of  Jesus) 454 

VII. 
John,  chap.  v.  3,  4.     (The  descent  of  the  angel  into  the  Sheep 
Pool  at  Jerusalem) 458 

vm. 
John,  chap.  vii.  53-viii.  11.     (The  story  of  the  woman  taken 
in  adultery) 460 

IX. 
John,  chap.  xxi.  24,  25.    (The  concluding  words  of  our  present 
copies  of  John's  Gospel) ,  •    .    .    .  461 


KOTE  B. 

On   the  Origin    of  the    Correspondences  among  the 
PiRST  Three  Gospels 463 

Section  I. 
Preliminary  Statement 463 

Section  II. 
On  the  Supposition  that  Two  of  the  Evangelists  copied, —  One 
from  his  Predecessor ;  and  the  Other,  from  Both  his  Prede- 
cessors     475 

Section  III. 
On  the  Supposition  that  the  First  Three  Evangelists  made  use 
of  Common  Written  Documents 488 

Section  IV. 
Proposed  Explanation  of  the  Correspondences  among  the  First 
Three  Gospels 510 

Section  V. 
Inferences  from  the  Explanation  which  has  been  given  of  the 
Correspondences  among  the  First  Three  Gospels 524 


CONTENTS.  XXlll 

Paqb 

Section  VI. 
Dlustration  of  the  First  Three  Gospels  to  be  derived  from  the 
Circumstances  connected  with  their  Composition 528 

Section   VII. 
Concluding  Eemarks    ...............  542 


NOTE  C. 

On  the  Writings  ascribed  to  Apostolical  Fathers    .    .  545 

Section  I. 
Purpose  of  this  Note 645 

Section  II. 
The  Epistle  of  Clement  of  Rome  to  the  Corinthians.    Another 
Epistle  ascribed  to  Clement 546 

Section  III. 
The  Epistle  of  Polycarp  to  the  Philippiang     .......  549 

Section  IV. 
The  Shepherd  of  Hermas 550 

Section  V. 
The  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  so  called 553 

Section  VI. 
Epistles  ascribed  to  Ignatius 5G0 

Section  VIL 
Concluding  Remarks  respecting  the  Evidence  for  or  against  the 
Genuineness  of  the  Gospels  to  be  derived  from  the  Writings 
before  mentioned 566 


mTEODUCTION. 


STATEMENT    OF    THE    CASE. 

The  object  of  the  following  work  is  to  prove  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  Gospels.  In  asserting  their  genuineness,  I  mean 
to  be  understood  as  affirming,  that  they  remain  essentially  the 
same  as  they  were  originally  written ;  and  that  they  have 
been  ascribed  to  their  true  authors.  The  ground  which  has 
been  taken  by  those  who  have  denied  their  genuineness,  as 
thus  explained,  may  appear  from  the  following  statements. 

The  Gospels  are  quoted,  as  the  undoubted  works  of  the 
authors  to  whom  they  are  ascribed,  by  an  unbroken  series 
of  Christian  writers,  reaching  back  to  the  latter  part  of  the 
second  century ;  or,  in  other  words,  to  the  time  of  Irenasus, 
who  wrote  in  the  last  quarter  of  that  century.  But  it  is 
affirmed,  that  beyond  his  time  the  testimony  to  their  genuine- 
ness fails.  As  we  ascend  to  a  remoter  period,  we  come  to  the 
writings  of  Justin  Martyr,  who  flourished  about  the  middle 
of  the  second  century;  and  to  those  ascribed  to  Apostolic 
Fathers,  or  supposed  contemporaries  of  the  Apostles.  It  has 
been  affirmed,  that  these  writings,  though  they  are  commonly 
quoted  for  the  purpose,  affi3rd  no  evidence  that  our  present 
Gospels  were  known  *j  their  authors.  In  regard  to  the 
writings  attributed  to  Apostolic  Fathers,  the  remark  is  not 
new.      It  was  made,  for  instance,  by  Bolingbroke,  who,  in 

1 


2  STATEMENT   OF   THE    CASE. 

his  "Letters  on  the  Study  of  History,"  has  the  following 
passage :  — 

"Writers  copy  one  another;  and  the  mistake  that  was  com- 
mitted, or  the  falstihood  that  was  invented  by  one,  is  adopted 
by  hundi'eds. 

"  Abbadie  says,  in  his  famous  book,  that  the  gospel  of  St. 
Ma**hew  is  cited  by  Clemens,  Bishop  of  Rome,  a  disciple  of  the 
apootles ;  that  Barnabas  cites  it  in  his  epistle ;  that  Ignatius  and 
Polvcarp  receive  it ;  and  that  the  same  fathers  that  give  testimony 
for  Matthew,  give  it  likewise  for  Mark.  Nay,  your  Lordship  will 
find,  I  believe,  that  the  present  bishop  of  London  [Gibson],  in  his 
third  pastoral  letter,  speaks  to  the  same  effect.  I  will  not  trouble 
you  nor  myself  with  any  more  instances  of  the  same  kind.  Let 
this,  which  occurred  to  me  as  I  was  writing,  suffice.  It  may  well 
suffice ;  for  I  presume  the  fact  advanced  by  the  minister  and  the 
bisiiop  is  a  mistake.  If  the  fathers  of  the  first  century  do  mention 
some  passages  that  are  agreeable  to  what  we  read  in  our  evangel- 
ists, will  it  follow  that  these  fathers  had  the  same  gospels  before 
them  ?  To  say  so  is  a  manifest  abuse  of  history,  and  quite  inex- 
cusable in  writers  that  knew,  or  should  have  known,  that  these 
fathers  made  use  of  other  gospels,  wherein  such  passages  mii^ht  be 
contained;  or  they  might  be  preserved  in -unwritten  tradition. 
Besides  Avhicii,  I  could  almost  venture  to  affirm,  that  these  fathers 
oi'  the  first  century  do  not  expressly  name  the  gospels  we  have  of 
Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John."  * 

The  supposition  of  Bolingbroke  in  the  last  sentence  is 
true ;  or  rather,  to  state  the  fact  precisely,  the  Gospels  are 
not  named  in  the  writings  ascribed  to  fathers  of  the  first 
century.  In  agreement  with  what  has  been  quoted,  the 
learned  German  theologian,  Eichhorn,  in  his  "  Introduction 
to  tlie  New  Testament,"  endeavors  to  prove  at  length,  that 
the  authors  of  those  writings  did  not  make  use  of  our  present 
Gospels,  but  of  others  different  from  them,  f 

*  Letter  V.  §  4. 

t  Einleitung  in  d.  N.  T.,  i.e.  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  vol.  i 
p.  113,  seqq.  I  give  the  pages  of  the  first  edition,  which  are  numbered  like- 
wise in  the  margin  of  the  second. 


STATEMENT   OF  THE   CASE.  3 

Another  German  theologian,  Less,  who  died  about  the 
close  of  the  last  centuiy,  wrote  in  defence  of  the  genuineness 
of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament.  In  treating  this  subject, 
the  results  at  which  he  arrives,  from  an  examination  of  the 
writings  just  mentioned,  are  thus  stated  by  Bishop  Marsh  :  — 

"From  the  epistle  of  Barnabas,  no  inference  can  be  deduced 
that  he  had  read  any  part  of  the  New  Testament.  From  the  gen- 
uine epistle,  as  it  is  called,  of  Clement  of  Rome,  it  may  be  inferred 
that  Clement  had  read  the  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  From 
the  Shepherd  of  Hernias,  no  inference  whatsoever  can  be  drawn. 
From  the  epistles  of  Ignatius,  it  may  be  concluded  that  he  had 
read  St.  Paul's  epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  and  that  there  existed  in 
his  time  evangelical  writings,  though  it  cannot  be  shown  that  he 
has  quoted  from  them.  From  Poly  carp's  epistle  to  the  Philip- 
pians,  it  appears  that  he  had  heard  of  St.  Paul's  epistle  to  that 
community,  and  that  he  quotes  a  passage  which  is  in  the  first 
epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  and  another  which  is  in  the  epistle  to 
the  Ephesians ;  but  no  positive  conclusion  can  be  drawn  with 
respect  to  any  other  epistle,  or  any  of  the  four  Gospels."  * 

According  to  this  statement,  it  would  appear  that  no  evi- 
dence can  be  derived  from  the  works  ascribed  to  Apostolic 
Fathers  in  proof  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels. 

The  writings  of  Justin  Martyr  have,  till  of  late,  been  ap- 
pealed to  confidently,  as  affording  very  early  and  very  impor- 
tant evidence  of  this  fact.  Lardner  states,  that  "  he  has 
numerous  quotations  of  our  Gospels  except  that  of  St.  Mark, 
which  he  has  seldom  quoted  ; "  that  "  it  must  be  plain  to  all, 
that  he  owned  and  had  the  highest  respect  for  the  four  Gos- 
pels ;  '*  and  that  he  affords  proof,  that  "  these  Gospels  were 
publicly  read  in  the  assemblies  of  the  Christians  every  Lord's 
day."  t  "  It  seems  extremely  material  to  be  observed,"  says 
Paley,  "that  in  all  Justin's  works,  from  which  might  be 
extracted  almost  a  complete  life  of  Christ,  there  are  but  two 

*  Marsh's  Michaelis,  vol.  i.  p.  354. 

1  Lardner' s  Credibility  of  the  Gospel  History,  p.  ii.  c.  10. 


4  STATEMENT   OF   THE   CASE. 

instances  in  which  he  refers  to  any  thing  as  said  or  done 
by  Christ  which  is  not  related  concerning  him  in  our  present 
Gospels  ;  which  shows  that  these  Gospels,  and  these,  we  may 
say,  alone,  were  the  authorities  from  which  the  Christians  of 
that  day  drew  the  information  upon  which  they  depended."  * 

It  is,  however,  at  present  contended,  that  Justin  Martyr 
did  not  quote  from  our  four  Gospels,  and  therefore  cannot 
afford  evidence  of  their  genuineness.  He  does  not  mention 
them  by  name.  His  quotations  which  agree  in  sense  with 
passages  found  in  the  Gospels,  he  professes  to  take  from  what 
he  calls  "  Memoirs  by  the  Apostles ; "  and,  in  these  quota- 
tions, there  is  generally  a  want  of  verbal  coincidence  with 
the  passages  in  the  Gospels  to  which  they  otherwise  corre- 
spond. 

•'Mr.  Stroth,"  says  Bishop  Marsh,  "has  shown  by  very  satis- 
factory arguments,  that  these  Memoirs  were  not  our  four  Gospels, 
but  a  single  gospel,  which  had  much  matter  in  common  with  the 
Gospels  of  St.  Matthew,  St.  Mark,  and  St.  Luke ;  but  which  was 
not  the  same  with  any  of  them.  Since  Mr.  Stroth's  time,  the  sub- 
ject has  been  again  investigated  by  several  eminent  critics ;  and 
the  uniform  result  of  their  inquiries  is,  that  Justin's  'ATTOfivi]fiovevfiaTa 
[the  Memoirs  in  question]  were  not  our  four  Gospels,  but  some 
single  gospel."  f  "If,"  says  Bishop  Marsh,  in  another  work, 
"the  force  of  Mr.  Stroth's  arguments  be  admitted  (and  they  seem 
really  convincing),  we  cannot  produce  Justin  as  an  evidence  for 
the  four  Gospels ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  no  inference  can  be 
deduced  to  their  disadvantage."  f 

The  concluding  remark,  that  no  inference  can  be  deduced 
to  the  disadvantage  of  the  Gospels,  Bishop  Marsh  endeavors 
to  illustrate :  but  its  truth  will  not  be  admitted  by  those  who 
deny  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels ;  and  the  proposition 
does  not,  in  itself,  appear  tenable. 

*  Paley's  Evidences  of  Christianity,  p.  i.  c.  ix.  s.  1. 
t  Letters  to  the  Anonymous  Author  of  Remarks  on  Michaelis  and  his 
C<immentator,  p.  29. 

X  Marsh's  Michaelis,  i.  361. 


STATEMENT   OF   THE   CASE.  5 

"Justin  Martyr,"  says  Eichhorn,  "who  was  born  A.D.  89, 
and  died  A.D.  1G3,  a  Samaritan,  a  native  of  Flavia  Neapolis, 
early  became  converted  from  a  heathen  philosopher  to  a  zealous 
Christian,  and  was  one  of  the  earliest  Christian  writers.  He  no- 
where quotes  the  life  and  sayings  of  Jesus  according  to  our  pres- 
ent four  Gospels,  which  he  was  not  acquainted  with.  This  is  a 
very  important  circumstance  in  regard  to  the  history  of  the  Gos- 
pels ;  as  he  had  devoted  many  years  to  travel,  and  resided  a  long 
time  in  Italy  and  Asia  Minor."  * 

On  the  whole,  it  is  concluded  by  Eichhorn  and  others,  that 
our  four  Gospels,  in  their  present  form,  were  not  in  common 
use  before  the  end  of  the  second  century.  Previously  to  that 
time,  it  is  supposed  that  other  gospels  were  in  circulation. 
"  If  we  will  not,"  says  Eichhorn,  "  be  influenced  by  idle  tales 
and  unsupported  tradition,  but  by  the  only  sure  evidence  of 
history,  we  must  conclude,  that,  before  our  present  Gospels, 
other  decidedly  different  gospels  were  in  circulation,  and  were 
used  during  the  first  two  centuries  in  the  instruction  of  Chris- 
tians." t  He  supposes  these  earlier  gospels  and  our  first  three 
Gospels,  namely,  those  of  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  to  have 
all  had  a  common  origin ;  and  he  gives  the  following  ac- 
count of  the  manner  in  which  he  conceives  them  to  have  been 
formed. 

There  was,  he  supposes,  very  early  in  existence  a  short 
historical  sketch  of  the  life  of  Christ,  which  may  be  called  the 
Original  Gospel.  This  was,  probably,  provided  for  the  use 
of  those  assistants  of  the  apostles  in  the  work  of  teaching 
Christianity,  who  had  not  themselves  seen  the  actions  and 
heard  the  discourses  of  Christ.  It  was,  however,  but  "a 
rough  sketch,"  "a  brief  and  imperfect  account,"  "without 
historical  plan  or  methodical  arrangement."  In  this  respect 
it  was,  according  to  Eichhorn,  very  different  from  our  four 
Gospels.  "  These  present  no  rough  sketch,  such  as  we  must 
suppose  the  first  essay  upon  the  life  of  Jesus  to  have  been ; 

*  Einleitung  in  d.  N.  T.,  i.  78.  f  Ibid.,  p.  140. 


6  STATEMENT   OF   THE    CASE. 

but,  on  the  contrary,  are  works  written  with  art  and  labor, 
and  contain  portions  of  his  life  of  which  no  mention  was 
made  in  the  first  preaching  of  Christianity."*  This  Original 
Gospel  was  the  basis  both  of  the  earlier  gospels  used  during 
the  first  two  centuries,  and  of  the  first  three  of  our  present 
Gospels,  by  which,  together  with  the  Gospel  of  John,  those 
earlier  gospels  were  finally  superseded.  The  earlier  gospels 
retained  more  or  less  of  the  rudeness  and  incompleteness  of 
^,he  Original  Gospel. 

'*IJut  they  very  soon  fell  into  the  hands  of  those  who  undertook 
to  supply  their  defects  and  incompleteness,  both  in  the  general 
compass  of  the  history,  and  in  the  narration  of  particular  events. 
Not  content  with  a  life  of  Jesus,  which,  like  the  gospel  of  the  He- 
brews, and  those  of  Marcion  and  Tatian,  commenced  with  his  pub- 
lic appearance,  there  were  those  who  early  prefixed  to  the  Memoirs 
used  by  Justin  Martyr,  and  to  the  gospel  of  Cerinthus,  an  account 
of  his  genealogy,  his  birth,  and  the  period  of  his  youth.  In  like 
manner,  we  find,  upon  comparing  together,  in  parallel  passages, 
the  remaining  fragments  of  these  gospels,  that  they  were  receiving 
continual  accessions.  The  voice  from  heaven  at  the  baptism  of 
Jesus  was  originally  stated  to  have  been,  TIwu  art  my  Son;  this 
day  have  I  begotten  thee ;  as  it  is  quoted  by  Justin  Martyr  in  two 
places.  Clement  of  Alexandria  found  the  same,  in  the  gospel  of 
which  we  have  no  particular  description,  with  the  addition  of  the 
word  '  beloved : '  Thou  art  my  beloved  Son ;  this  day  have  1  be- 
gotten thee.  Other  gospels  represented  the  voice  as  having  been. 
Thou  ari,  my  beloved  Son,  with  whom  I  am  well  pleased;  as  it  is 
given  in  the  catholic  Gospels,  namely,  in  Mark  i.  11.  In  the  gos- 
pel of  the  Ebionites,  according  to  Epiphanius,  both  accounts  of 
the  voice  from  heaven  were  united :  Thou  art  my  beloved  Son,  with 
thee  1  am  well  pleased ;  and  again^  This  day  have  I  begotten  thee. 
By  these  continual  accessions,  the  original  text  of  the  life  of  Jesus 
was  lost  in  a  mass  of  additions,  so  that  its  words  appeared  among 
them  but  as  insulated  fragments.  Of  this  any  one  may  satisfy  him- 
self from  the  account  of  the  baptism  of  Jesus,  which  was  compiled 
out  of  various  gospels.     The  necessary  consequence  was,  that  at 

*  Einleitung  in  d.  N.  T.,  i.  5,  242. 


STATEMENT    OP    THE    CASE.  7 

last  truth  and  falsehood,  authentic  and  fabulous  narratives,  or 
such,  at  least,  as  through  long  tradition  had  become  disfigured 
and  falsified,  were  brought  together  promiscuously.  The  longer 
these  narratives  passed  from  mouth  to  mouth,  the  more  uncertain 
and  disfigured  they  would  become.  At  last,  at  the  end  of  the  sec- 
ond and  the  begitming  of  the  third  century,  in  order,  as  far  as 
might  be,  to  preserve  the  true  accounts  concerning  the  life  of  Je- 
sus, and  to  deliver  them  to  posterity  as  free  from  error  as  possible, 
the  Church,  out  of  the  many  gospels  which  were  extant,  selected 
four,  which  had  the  greatest  marks  of  credibility,  and  the  neces- 
sary completeness  for  common  use.  There  are  no  traces  of  our 
present  Gospels  of  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  before  the  end  of 
the  second  and  the  beginning  of  the  third  century.  Irenajus,  about 
the  year  202,  first  speaks  decisively  of  four  gospels,  and  imagines 
ail  sorts  of  reasons  for  this  particular  number ;  and  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  about  the  year  216,*  labored  to  collect  divers  ac- 
counts concerning  the  origin  of  these  four  gospels,  in  order  to 
prove  that  these  alone  should  be  acknowledged  as  authentic. 
From  these  facts,  it  is  evident,  that  it  was  about  the  end  of  the 
second  and  the  beginning  of  the  third  century  that  the  Church  first 
labored  to  establish  the  universal  authority  of  these  four  gospels, 
which  were  in  existence  before,  if  not  altogether  in  their  present 
form,  yet  in  most  respects  such  hk  we  now  have  them,  and  to  pro- 
cure their  general  reception  in  the  Church,  with  the  suppression 
of  all  other  gospels  then  extant. 

"  Posterity  would  indeed  have  been  under  much  greater  obli- 
gations, if,  together  with  the  Gospel  of  John,  the  Church  had  es- 
tablished, by  public  authority,  only  the  first  rough  sketch  of  the 
life  of  Jesus,  which  was  given  to  the  earliest  missionaries  to  au- 
thenticate their  preaching  ;  after  separating  it  from  all  its  additions 
and  augmentations.  But  this  was  no  longer  possible ;  for  there 
was  no  copy  extant  free  from  all  additions,  and  the  critical  opera- 
tion of  separating  this  accessory  matter  was  too  difficult  for  those 
times."  t 

*  The  dates  here  assigned  by  Eichhorn,  it  may  be  observed,  are,  as  has 
been  supposed,  the  dates  of  the  death  of  Irenoeus  and  of  Clement,  not  of  the 
periods  about  which  they  wrote  and  flourished.  These  he  elsewhere  gives 
correctly. 

t  Einleit.  in  d.  is".  T.,  i.  142-145. 


8  STATEMENT   OF  THE   CASE. 

"  Many  ancient  writers  of  the  Church,"  Eichhorn  subjoins 
in  a  note,  "  doubted  the  genuineness  of  many  parts  of  our 
Gospels ;  but  were  prevented  from  coming  to  a  decision  by 
want  of  critical  skill."*  It  is  to  be  observed,  however,  that 
the  only  ancient  writer  of  the  Church,  whom  he  quotes  in 
proof  of  this  assertion,  is  Faustus,  the  well-known  Manichsean 
of  the  fourth  century. 

In  treating  of  the  continual  alterations  and  additions,  to 
which  he  supposes  the  text  of  the  Original  Gospel  to  have 
been  subjected,  before  it  assumed  that  form  in  which  it  was 
used  by  the  first  three  Evangelists,  Eichhorn  observes,  that — 

*'  Such  an  arbitrary  mode  of  dealing  with  the  composition  of  an- 
other, so  that  it  shall  pass  thus  altered  into  circulation,  is  in  our 
times  a  thing  unheard  of  and  impossible  ;  because  it  is  prevented 
by  the  multiplication  of  printed  copies.  But  it  was  different,"  he 
proceeds,  "  before  the  invention  of  printing.  In  transcribing  a 
manuscript,  the  most  arbitrary  alterations  were  considered  as  al- 
lowable, since  they  affected  only  an  article  of  private  property, 
written  for  the  use  of  an  individual.  But  these  altered  manuscripts 
being  again  transcribed,  without  inquiry  whether  the  manuscript 
transcribed  contained  the  pure  text  of  the  author,  altered  copies 
of  works  thus  passed  unobserved  into  circulation.  How  often  do 
the  manuscripts  of  any  one  of  the  chronicles  of  the  Middle  Ages, 
of  which  several  manuscripts  are  extant,  agree  with  each  other  in 
exhibiting  the  same  text,  equally  copious,  or  equally  brief?  What 
numerous  complaints  do  we  read  in  the  fathers  of  the  first  centu- 
ries concerning  the  arbitrary  alterations  made  in  their  writings, 
published  but  a  short  time  before,  by  the  possessors  or  transcrib- 
ers of  manuscripts.  Scarcely  had  copies  of  the  letters  of  Diony- 
sius  of  Corinth  begun  to  circulate,  before,  as  he  expresses  himselt, 
'  the  apostles  of  Satan  filled  them  with  tares  ;  omitting  some  things 
and  adding  others  ; '  and  the  same  fate,  according  to  his  testimony, 
the  Holy  Scriptures  themselves  could  not  escape.  If  transcribers 
had  not  permitted  themselves  to  make  the  most  arbitrary  altera- 
tions in  the  writings  of  others,  would  it  have  been  as  customary  as 

*  Einleit.  iu  d.  N.  T.,  i.  145. 


STATEMENT   OF   THE   CASE.  9 

we  find  it  was  for  authors  of  those  times  to  a(^jure  their  readers,  at 
the  end  of  their  writings,  to  make  no  alterations  in  them,  and  to 
denounce  the  most  fearful  curses  against  those  who  should  under- 
take to  do  so  ? 

"The  histories  of  Jesus  must  also  have  been  subjected  to  the 
same  mode  of  treatment.  Does  not  Celsus  object  to  the  Chris- 
tians, that  they  had  changed  the  gospels  three  times,  four  times, 
and  oftener?  From  what  other  cause  can  it  proceed,  that  we  still 
find  fragments  of  the  apocryphal  gospels,  in  which  all  the  accounts 
respecting  some  particular  passage  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  which  are 
elsewhere  found  scattered  in  different  gospels,  are  brought  to- 
gether and  combined  into  one  whole  ?  Thus  the  apocryphal  gos- 
pel of  the  Ebionites,  quoted  by  Epiphanius,  has  brought  together 
all  relating  to  the  baptism  of  Jesus  which  is  found  concerning  it 
in  our  first  three  Gospels,  and  in  the  Memoirs  by  the  Apostles, 
used  by  Justin  Martyr."  * 

*'  As  soon,"  he  remarks  in  another  place,  "  as  the  history  of  our 
catholic  Gospels  commences,  we  find  men  without  any  critical 
knowledge  busy  in  altering  their  text,  in  shortening  and  lengthen- 
ing it,  and  in  making  changes  of  synonymous  words.  And  is  this 
to  be  wondered  at  ?  Ever  since  the  existence  of  written  histories 
of  Jesus,  it  had  been  customary  for  the  possessors  of  manuscripts 
to  make  alterations  in  their  text,  according  to  the  particular  knowl- 
edge which  they  had  of  his  preaching  and  actions,  and  of  the  events 
of  his  life.  Thus  the  second  and  third  generations  of  Christians 
only  continued  this  practice  respecting  the  gospels  which  the  first 
had  begun.  The  custom  was,  in  the  second  century,  so  generally 
known,  that  even  those  who  were  not  believers  were  acquainted 
with  it.  Celsus  objects  to  the  Christians,  that  they  had  changed 
their  gospels  three  times,  four  times,  and  oftener,  as  if  they  were 
deprived  of  their  senses.  Clement  also,  at  the  end  of  the  second 
century,  speaks  of  those  who  corrupted  the  gospels,  and  ascribes 
it  to  them,  that  at  Matt.  v.  10,  instead  of  the  words,  ybr  theirs  is 
the  hingdom  of  heaven,  there  was  found  in  some  manuscripts,  ybr 
they  shall  he  perfect ;  and  in  others,  for  they  shall  have  a  place 
where  they  shall  not  be  persecuted.''''  f 

*  Einleit.  in  d.  N.  T.,  i.  173,  seqq.  j  Ibid.,  pp.  652,  653. 


10  STATEMENT   OP   THE    CASE. 

The  preceding  Statements  give  a  view  of  the  difficulties 
which  have  been  supposed  to  attend  the  proof  of  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  Gospels  ;  and  likewise  of  the  opinions  which  have 
been  entertained  respecting  their  gross  corruption,  supposing 
them,  in  a  certain  sense,  to  have  proceeded  from  the  authors 
to  whom  they  have  been  ascribed.  The  passages  quoted  from 
Eichhorn  are  not  to  be  regarded  as  expressing  the  views  of 
only  a  single  writer.  No  work  of  a  similar  kind  has  been 
received  in  Germany  with  more  approbation  than  his  "  Intro- 
duction to  the  New  Testament ; "  and  his  notions  respecting 
the  Gospels,  or  others  of  the  same  general  character,  essen- 
tially affecting  the  belief  of  their  genuineness,  have  been  held 
by  many  modern  German  writers. 

But,  if  the  preceding  statements  and  opinions  be  correct, 
an  objector  may  say,  — "  You  have  little  or  rather  no  evi- 
dence for  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  which  reaches  back 
beyond  the  close  of  the  second  century ;  though  they  were 
composed,  as  you  imagine,  about  one  hundred  and  fifty  years 
before.  You  have,  in  fact,  no  proof  of  their  existence,  in 
their  present  form,  previous  to  that  period.  All  that  can  be 
rendered  probable  is,  that  some  works  were  in  existence, 
which  served  as  a  basis  for  the  Gospels  you  now  possess. 
But  if,  during  the  first  two  centuries,  it  was  so  common  to 
enlarge  the  histories  of  Jesus  Christ,  then  in  use,  with  tradi- 
tionary tales,  and  with  additions  of  various  kinds,  great  and 
small ;  and  to  alter  and  remodel  them,  as  the  transcribers 
or  possessors  of  manuscripts  might  think  proper,  —  you  can 
hardly  pretend  to  rely  with  much  confidence  upon  those 
histories  which  now  exist.  We  know  in  what  manner  the 
legends  of  saints  have  been  gradually  swelled  with  the  ad- 
dition of  miraculous  stories,  unknown  to  those  by  whom  they 
were  first  composed ;  and  something  very  similar  may  have 
been  the  case  with  your  Gospels." 


STATEMENT   OF   THE   CASE.  11 

In  answer,  then,  to  all  that  has  been  alleged,  the  object 
of  the  following  work  is  to  establish  these  two  proposi- 
tions :  — 

I.  That  the  Gospels  remain  essentially  the  same  as  they 
were  originally  composed. 

II.  That  they  have  been  ascribed  to  their  true  authors. 


PART    I. 


PROOF  THAT  THE  GOSPELS  REMAIN  ESSENTIALLY  THE  SAME  AS 
THEY   WERE  ORIGINALLY   COMPOSED. 


PAKT  L 


CHAPTER    I. 

ARGUMENT    FROM    THE    AGREEJMENT    OF    THE    RESPECTIVE 
COPIES    OF    THE    FOUR    GOSPELS. 

The  first  proposition  to  be  established,  thcit  the  Gospels  re- 
main essentially  the  same  as  they  were  originally  composed, 
requires  some  explanation  and  remark. 

In  regard  to  St.  Matthew's  Gospel,  the  proposition  is  to 
be  understood  in  a  particular  sense.  This  Gospel,  it  is  prob- 
able, was  originally  composed  in  Hebrew ;  and  we  possess 
only  a  Greek  translation,  made  at  a  very  early  period.* 
This  translation,  it  will  be  my  purpose  to  show,  has  been 
faithfully  preserved.  No  reason  has  ever  been  adduced  for 
suspecting  that  the  translation  was  not  intended  to  be  a  faith- 
ful representative  of  the  original. 

The  Gospels,  I  have  said,  remain  essentially  the  same  as 
they  were  originally  written.  In  common  with  all  other 
ancient  writings,  they  have  been  exposed  to  the  accidents  to 
which  works  preserved  by  transcription  are  liable.  In  the 
yery  numerous  authorities  for  determining  their  text,  we  find 
a  great  number  of  differences,  or  various  readings.  But,  by 
comparing  those  authorities  together,  we  are  able,  in  general, 
to  ascertain  satisfactorily  the  original  text  of  the  last  three 

•  On  this  subject  see  Note  A,  pp.  425-430. 


16  EVIDENCES    OF   THE 

Gospels,  and  of  the  Greek  translation  of  St.  Matthew. 
There  are,  however,  a  few  passages  admitted  into  the  Re- 
ceived Text  (the  text  in  common  use  before  the  publication 
of  Griesbach's  edition),  some  extant  in  a  majority  of  our 
present  manuscripts,  and  some  even  in  all,  the  genuineness  of 
which  is  still  questionable.  Various  considerations  —  arising 
from  some  of  these  passages  not  being  found  in  manuscripts 
of  the  highest  authority,  from  direct  historical  evidence  con- 
cerning them  in  the  writings  of  the  fathers,  from  their  unsuit- 
ableness  to  the  context,  from  the  nature  of  their  contents, 
and  from  the  want  of  correspondence  between  their  style  and 
that  of  the  evangelist  in  whose  work  they  now  stand  —  may 
lead  us  to  disbelieve  or  doubt  that  they  proceeded  from  him. 
In  mentioning  such  as  are  extant  in  all  our  present  manu- 
scripts, I  refer  particularly  to  certain  passages  in  the  Greek 
Gospel  of  Matthew. 

I  will  here  mention  the  more  important  passages  in  the 
Received  Text  of  the  Gospels,  which,  from  such  causes  as  J 
have  spoken  of,  may,  I  think,  be  regarded  as  spurious,  or  as 
lying  under  suspicion.  I  shall  reserve  ii  more  particular 
examination  of  them  for  another  place,  where  I  shall  treat 
at  length  of  the  various  readings  of  the  text  of  the  Gospels.* 

There  are  strong  reasons  for  thinking  that  the  first  two 
chapters  of  our  present  copies  of  the  Greek  Gospel  of  Mat- 
thew made  no  part  of  the  original  Hebrew.  We  may  sup- 
pose them  to  have  been  an  ancient  document,  which,  from 
the  connection  of  the  subject  with  his  history,  was  transcribed 
into  the  same  volume  with  it,  and  which,  though  first  written 
as  a  distinct  work,  with  some  mark  of  separation,  yet  in  pro- 
cess of  time  became  blended  with  it,  so  as  apparently  to  form 
its  commencement.  Being  thus  found  incorporated  with  the 
Gospel  in  the  manuscript,  or  in  manuscripts,  used  by  the 
translator,  it  was  rendered  by  him  as  part  of  the  original. 

*  See  Note  A,  pp.  431-462 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE   GOSPELS.  17 

There  are  two  other  passages  in  our  Greek  Gospel  of 
Matthew,  which,  as  it  seems  to  me,  there  is  much  reason  for 
regarding  as  interpolated.  These  passages  are  the  narrative 
concerning  Judas,  in  the  twenty-seventh  chapter,  beginning 
with  the  third  and  ending  with  the  tenth  verse ;  and  the  ac- 
count of  the  raising  of  the  bodies  of  many  saints  at  the  time 
of  our  Saviour's  crucifixion,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  fifty- 
second  verse  and  the  fifty-third  of  the  same  chapter. 

In  respect  to  Mark's  Gospel,  there  is  ground  for  believing 
that  the  last  twelve  verses  were  not  written  by  the  evangel- 
ist, but  were  added  by  some  other  writer  to  supply  a  short 
conclusion  to  the  work,  which  some  cause  had  prevented  the 
author  from  completing. 

In  Luke's  Gospel,  the  only  passage  of  any  considerable 
length  or  importance,  the  genuineness  of  which  appears  to 
me  liable  to  suspicion,  consists  of  the  forty-third  and  forty- 
fourth  verses  of  the  twenty-second  chapter,  containing  an 
account  of  the  descent  of  an  angel  to  Jesus,  and  of  his  agony 
and  bloody  sweat. 

In  John's  Gospel,  what  now  stands  as  the  conclusion,  the 
latter  part  of  the  twenty-fourth  verse  and  the  twenty-fifth,  of 
the  last  chapter,  has  the  air  of  an  editorial  note. 

In  the  Received  Text  of  this  Gospel,  there  are  likewise 
two  other  passages  to  be  considered.  The  genuineness  of  the 
last  clause  of  the  third  and  the  whole  of  the  fourth  verse  of 
the  fifth  chapter,  which  contain  an  account  of  the  descent 
of  an  angel  into  the  pool  of  Bethesda,  is  very  questionable ; 
and  the  story  of  the  woman  taken  in  adultery  is,  in  my  opiu- 
ion,  justly  regarded  by  a  majority  of  modern  critics  as  not 
having  been  a  part  of  the  original  Gospel.* 

*  Besides  those  that  have  been  mentioned  above,  there  are  two  other  pas- 
sages in  -the  Gospels  which  it  may  be  well  to  notice  in  connection  with  this 
subject. 

One  consists  of  the  words  ascribed  to  our  Lord  in  Matt.  xii.  40 :  "  For 
as  Jonah  was  three  days  and  three  nights  in  the  belly  of  the  fish,  so  will 

2 


18  EVIDENCES   OP   THE 

The  two  passages  last  mentioned,  and  the  other  intfi^O' 
lations  that  have  been  suggested,  —  that  is,  the  two  insertions 
into  the  body  of  the  text  of  the  original  Hebrew  of  Matthew's 
Gospel,  and  one  into  that  of  Luke's  Gospel,  —  were,  we  may 
suppose,  first  written  as  notes  or  additional  matter  in  the 
margin  of  some  copies  of  the  Gospel  in  which  they  are  found. 
But  passages  belonging  to  the  text  of  a  work,  which  had  been 
accidentally  omitted  by  a  transcriber,  were  likewise  oftei 
preserved  in  the  margin.  From  this  circumstance,  notes  and 
additional  matter,  thus  written,  were  not  unfrequently  mis- 
taken for  parts  of  the  text,  and  introduced  by  a  subsequent 
copier  into  what  he  thought  their  proper  place.  This  is  a 
fruitful  source  of  various  readino;s  in  ancient  vyritino^s  ;  and 
may  explain  how  the  passages  in  question,  if  not  genuine, 
have  become  incorporated  with  the  text  of  the  Gospels. 

The  facts  that  have  been  mentioned,  respecting  doubtful  or 
spurious  passages  in  the  text  of  the  Gospels,  imply  nothing 
opposite  to  the  general  proposition  maintained.  On  the  con- 
trary, in  reasoning  concerning  those  passages,  we  go  upon  the 
supposition  of  its  truth.  It  is  assumed,  that  the  Gospels,  gen- 
erally speaking,  have  been  faithfully  preserved ;  but  it  is  con- 
tended, that  there  are  particular  reasons  for  doubting,  whether 
one  or  another  of  the  passages  in  question,  though  found  in 


the  Son  of  man  be  three  daj-s  and  three  nights  in  the  heart  of  the  earth." 
There  are  strong,  and  it  may  seem  sufficient,  reasons  for  believing  these  words 
not  to  have  been  uttered  by  our  Lord.  But,  on  the  supposition  that  they  were 
not,  it  does  not  necessarily  follow  that  they  are  an  interpolation  in  the  text 
of  Matthew's  Gospel. 

The  other  passage  consists  of  the  Avords  in  which  our  Lord  is  said  to  have 
reproved  James  and  John  for  the  suggestion  of  calling  down  tire  from  heaven 
upon  a  village  of  the  Samaritans,  —  Luke  ix.  55,  56.  There  is  nothing  in  the 
words  themselves  to  excite  a  doubt  of  their  having  been  spoken  by  Jesus. 
The  only  reason  for  questioning  whether  they  originally  made  a  part  of 
Luke's  Gospel  is,  that  they  are  wanting  in  a  large  number  of  the  most  im- 
portant copies  of  it.  The  passage  presents  one  of  the  most  difficult  and 
curious  problems  in  the  criticism  of  the  text  of  the  New  Testament. 

Both  these  passages  are  examined  in  Note  A,  before  referred  to. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         19 

many  or  in  all  the  extant  manuscripts  of  a  Gospel,  proceeded 
from  the  pen  of  the  evangelist.  These  reasons  are  specific, 
applying  in  every  case  to  the  particular  passage  under  consid- 
eration, and  not  admitting  of  a  general  application.  They 
suppose  no  new  theory  respecting  the  corruption  of  the  Gos- 
pels, and  no  habit  in  transcribers  of  making  unlicensed  al- 
terations. They  imply  nothing  more  than  the  operation  of 
particular  accidents,  producing  error  in  particular  cases  ;  the 
possibility  of  which  none  will  deny.  All  that  we  can  say 
respecting  any  ancient  work  is,  that  it  remains  essentially  the 
same  as  it  was  originally  composed.  For  specific  reasons, 
applying  to  some  particular  passage,  we  may  doubt  whether 
it  proceeded  from  the  pen  of  the  evangelist.  But  unless  the 
Gospels  were  exposed,  as  has  been  imagined,  to  some  pecu- 
liar causes  of  corruption,  there  can  be  no  question,  that,  gen- 
erally speaking,  we  have  satisfactory  means  of  determining 
the  original  text  of  the  last  three  Gospels,  and  that  of  the 
Greek  translation  of  Matthew  ;  the  number  of  authorities  for 
settling  it  —  manuscripts,  ancient  versions,  and  quotations  by 
ancient  writers  —  being  far  more  numerous  and  important 
than  those  for  settling  the  text  of  any  other  ancient  writing. 

We  proceed,  then,  to  the  proof  that  the  Gospels  have  not 
been  exposed  to  any  peculiar  causes  of  corruption,  but  remain 
essentially  the  same  as  they  were  originally  composed. 

This  appears,  in  the  first  place,  from  the  agreement  among 
our  present  manuscript  copies  of  the  Gospels,  or  of  parts  of 
the  Gospels,  in  whatever  form  these  copies  appear.  There 
have  been  examined,  in  a  greater  or  less  degree,  about  six 
hundred  and  seventy  manuscripts*  of  the  whole,  or  of  por- 
tions, of  the  Greek  text  of  the  Gospels.  These  were  written 
in  different  countries,  and  at  different  periods,  probably  from 
the  fifth  century  downwards.    They  have  been  found  in  places 

*  See  Scholz's  Catalogue,  in  the  Prolegomena  to  his  N.  T. 


20  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

widely  remote  from  each  other,  —  in  Asia,  in  Africa,  and  from 
one  extremity  of  Europe  to  the  other.  Besides  these  manu- 
scripts of  the  Greek  text,  there  are  many  manuscripts  of 
ancient  versions  of  the  Gospels,  in  different  languages  of  each 
of  the  three  great  divisions  of  the  world  just  mentioned. 
There  are  likewise  many  manuscripts  of  the  works  of  the 
Christian  fathers,  abounding  in  quotations  from  the  Gospels ; 
and  especially  manuscripts  of  ancient  commentaries  on  the 
Gospels,  such  as  those  of  Origen,  who  lived  in  the  third  cen- 
tury, and  of  Chrysostom,  who  lived  in  the  fourth,  —  in  which 
we  find  their  text  quoted,  as  the  different  portions  of  it  are 
successively  the  subjects  of  remark. 

Now,  all  these  different  copies  of  the  Gospels,  or  parts  of 
the  Gospels,  —  so  numerous,  so  various  in  their  character,  so 
unconnected,  offering  themselves  to  notice  in  parts  of  the 
world  so  remote  from  each  other,  —  concur  in  giving  us  essen- 
tially the  same  text.  Divide  them  into  four  classes,  corre- 
sponding to  the  four  Gospels,  and  it  is  evident  that  those  of 
each  class  are  to  be  referred  to  one  common  source ;  that  they 
are  all  copies,  more  or  less  remote,  of  the  same  original ;  that 
they  all  had  one  common  text  for  their  archetype.  They  vary, 
indeed,  more  or  less  from  each  other :  but  their  variations  have 
arisen  from  the  common  accidents  of  transcription ;  or,  as 
regards  the  versions,  partly  from  errors  of  translation ;  or,  in 
respect  to  the  quotations  by  the  fathers,  partly  from  the  cir- 
cumstance, that,  in  ancient  as  in  modern  times,  the  language 
of  Scripture  was  often  cited  loosely,  from  memory,  and  with- 
out regard  to  verbal  accuracy,  in  cases  where  no  particular 
verbal  accuracy  was  required.  The  agreement  among  the 
extant  copies  of  any  one  of  the  Gospels,  or  of  portions  of  it, 
is  essential:  the  disagreements  are  accidental  and  trifling, 
originating  in  causes  which,  from  the  nature  of  things,  we 
know  must  have  been  in  operation.  The  same  work  every- 
where appears :  and,  by  comparing  together  different  copies, 
we  are  able  to  ascertain  the  original  text  to  a  great  degree 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         21 

of  exactness ;  or,  in  other  words,  where  various  readings 
occur,  to  determine  what  were  probably  the  words  of  the 
author. 

The  Greek  manuscripts,  then,  of  any  one  of  the  Gospels, 
the  versions  of  it,  and  the  quotations  from  it  by  the  fathers, 
are  a'l,  professedly,  copies  of  that  Gospel,  or  of  parts  of  it ; 
and  these  correspond  with  each  other.  But,  as  these  pro- 
fessed copies  thus  correspond  with  each  other,  it  follows  that 
they  were  derived  more  or  less  remotely,  from  one  archetype. 
Their  agreement  admits  of  no  explanation,  except  that  of 
their  being  conformed  to  a  common  exemplar.  In  respect  to 
each  of  the  Gospels,  the  copies  which  we  possess  must  all  be 
referred,  for  their  source,  to  one  original  Gospel,  one  original 
text,  one  original  manuscript.  As  far  back  as  our  knowledge 
extends,  Christians,  throughout  all  past  ages,  in  Syria,  at 
Alexandria,  at  Rome,  at  Carthage,  at  Constantinople,  and 
at  Moscow,  in  the  East  and  in  the  West,  have  all  used  copies 
of  each  of  the  Gospels,  which  were  evidently  derived  from 
one  original  manuscript,  and  necessarily  imply  that  sivch  a 
manuscript,  existing  as  their  archetype,  has  been  faithfully 
copied. 

Let  us  now  consider  what  must  have  been  the  consequence, 
if  the  supposition  before  stated,  respecting  the  license  taken 
by  different  transcribers,  were  true  of  any  one  of  the  Gospels. 
In  this  case,  one  transcriber,  in  one  part  of  the  world,  would 
have  made  certain  alterations  in  his  copy,  and  inserted  certain 
narratives  which  he  had  collected ;  and  another,  in  another 
place,  would  have  made  different  alterations,  and  inserted  dif- 
ferent narratives.  Such  copies,  upon  the  supposition  that  this 
imagined  license  continued,  would,  when  again  transcribed, 
have  been  again  changed  and  enlarged.  Copies  would  have 
been  continually  multiplying,  diverging  more  and  more  from 
the  original  and  from  each  other.  The  original  text  would 
have  been  confounded  and  lost  among  additions  and  changes, 
till,  at  last,  it  might  have  appeared,  to  quote  the  language  of 


22  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

Eichhorn,  only  in  "insulated  fragments."*  No  generally  re- 
ceived text  would  have  existed ;  none,  therefore,  could  have 
been  preserved  and  handed  down.  Instead  of  that  agreement 
among  the  copies  of  each  Gospel  which  now  exists,  we  should 
have  found  everywhere  manuscripts,  presenting  us  with  differ- 
ent collections  of  narratives  and  sayings  ;  and  differing,  at  the 
same  time,  in  their  arrangement  of  the  same  facts,  and  in  their 
general  style  of  expression.  There  would  have  been  as  great 
a  want  of  correspondence  among  the  manuscripts  which  pro- 
fessed to  contain  any  particular  Gospel  as  there  is  known  to 
exist  among  those  of  the  Arabian  Nights,  or  among  the  cop- 
ies of  the  Gesta  RomanoiTim.  They  would  have  been  more 
unlike  than  those  manuscripts  of  chronicles  of -the  Middle 
Ages  to  which  Eichhorn  refers,t  as  the  Gospels  have  been 
much  more  frequently  transcribed.  The  copies  of  these 
writings  would  have  presented  the  same  phenomena  as  those 
of  some  of  the  apocryphal  books ;  that,  for  example,  called  the 
Gospel  of  the  Infancy,  which  appears  in  several  different 
fornas,  this  collection  of  fables  having  been  remodelled  by 
one  transcriber  after  another  according  to  his  ftmcy.  At  the 
same  time,  we  should  have  found  the  want  of  agreement, 
which  must  have  existed  among  different  manuscripts  of  any 
one  of  the  Gospels,  extending  itself  equally  to  the  transla- 
tions of  that  Gospel,  and  to  the  professed  quotations  from 
it  in  ancient  writers. 

The  argument  which  has  been  employed  seems  easy  to 
be  comprehended ;  and  at  the  same  time  conclusive  of  the 
fact,  that  all  our  present  copies  of  each  of  the  Gospels  are  to 
]>2  traced  back  to  one  original  manuscript,  in  multiplying  the 
copies  of  which,  no  such  liberties  can  have  been  taken  by 
transcribers  as  are  supposed  in  the  hypothesis  under  con- 
sideration. The  argument  seems,  likewise,  very  obvious ; 
yet  its  force  and  bearing  appear   to  have  been  overlooked 

*  See  before,  p.  6.  f  See  betore,  p.  8. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         23 

in  framing  that  hypothesis.  The  fact  does  not  seem  to  have 
been  distinctly  adverted  to,  that  the  transcriber  or  possessor 
of  a  manuscript,  making  such  alterations  as  the  hypothesis 
supposes,  could  introduce  them  onl}'  into  a  single  copy,  and 
into  such  others  as  might  be  transcribed  from  it ;  and  that  he 
could  not,  properly  speaking,  add  to  or  corrupt  the  work 
itself.  His  copy  would  have  no  influence  upon  contemporary 
copies ;  and  in  the  case  of  the  Gospels,  we  may  say,  upon 
numerous  contemporary  copies,  in  which  the  true  text  might 
be  preserved,  or  into  which  different  alterations  might  be 
introduced.  It  is  quite  otherwise  since  the  invention  of 
printing.  He  who  now  introduces  a  corruption  into  the 
printed  edition  of  a  work,  introduces  it  into  all  the  copies 
of  that  edition  ;  if  it  be  the  only  edition,  into  all  the  co!)ies  of 
that  work ;  and,  in  many  cases,  into  a  great  majority  of  the 
copies  which  are  extant,  or  which  are  most  accessible.  All 
these  copies  will  agree  in  presenting  us  with  the  same 
changes  or  interpolations.  He  may  properly  be  said  to  cor- 
rupt the  work  itself.  Thus,  before  the  invention  of  printing, 
the  famous  verse  in  the  first  Epistle  of  John,  v.  7,  was  to  be 
found,  as  ftir  as  is  known,  in  the  text  of  not  more  than  two 
Greek  manuscripts  of  all  those  in  existence.*  But  it  was 
early  admitted  into  a  printed  edition  of  the  New  Testament ; 
and  it  is  now  to  be  found  in  a  great  majority  of  the  printed 
copies,  and  consequently  of  all  the  copies,  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. It  is  not  now  to  be  considered  as  a  corruption  of  a 
particular  manuscript,  but  as  a  corruption  of  the  Epistle  itself. 
If  printing  had  not  been  invented,  and  the  Epistle  had  been 
preserved,  as  before,  only  by  transcription,  the  fact  would 
probably  have  been  very  different.  The  passage,  instead  of 
being  in  a  great  majority  of  copies,  might  'have  been  found 

*  I  refer  to  the  Codex  Montfortianns,  and  to  another  latel}'  discovered  in 
the  Vatican  Lil)rary  by  Scholz  (see  his  Biblischkritische  Reise,  i.e.  Travels 
for  the  Purpose  of  Biblical  Criticism,  p.  105).  But  it  is  not  certain  that 
either  of  tliese  manuscripts  was  written  before  the  invention  of  printing. 


24  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

only  in  a  very  small  minority.  The  power  of  an  ancient 
copier  to  alter  the  text  of  a  work  was  very  different  from 
that  of  a  modern  editor ;  yet  it  would  seem  that  they  must 
have  been  confounded  in  the  hypothesis  under  consideration, 
unless  some  further  account  is  to  be  given  of  the  manner  in 
which  the  text  of  our  present  Gospels  has  been  formed  and 
perpetuated. 

It  is  evident  from  the  preceding  statements,  that  the  exist- 
ing copies  of  each  of  the  Gospels  have  been  derived  from 
some  common  exemplar,  faithfully  followed  by  transcribers. 
But  it  may  be  said,  that  this  exemplar  was  not  the  original 
work,  as  it  proceeded  from  the  hand  of  the  evangelist ;  that 
the  lineage  of  our  present  copies  is  not  to  be  traced  so  high ; 
but  that,  at  some  period,  the  course  of  corruption  which  has 
been  described  was  arrested,  and  a  standard  text  was  selected 
and  determined  upon,  which  has  served  as  an  archetype  for 
all  existing  copies ;  but  that  this  text,  thus  fixed  as  the 
standard,  had  already  suffered  greatly  from  the  corruptions 
of  transcribers,  and  was  very  different  from  the  original. 
This  supposition  is  implied  in  the  passage  from  Eichhorn, 
which  has  been  before  quoted.* 

The  Church,  according  to  Eichhorn,  selected  four  gospels 
out  of  a  multitude,  and  labored  to  procure  their  general  re- 
ception in  the  Church.  In  order  to  understand  this  proposi- 
tion, it  is  necessary  to  determine  what  must  be  the  meaning 
of  the  word  "  Church."  There  was  no  organized  universal 
Church,  nor  any  thing  resembling  such  an  establishment,  in 
existence,  till  long  after  the  close  of  the  second  century. 
There  was  no  single  ecclesiastical  government,  which  ex- 
tended over  Christians,  or  over  a  majority  of  Christians,  or 
over  any  considerable  portion  of  their  number.  They  had 
no  regular  modes  of  acting  in  concert,   nor   any  effectual 

*  See  before,  p.  7. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  25 

means  whatever  of  combining  together  for  a  common  pur- 
pose. Neither  the  whole  body,  nor  a  majority  of  Christians. 
ever  met  by  delegation  to  devise  common  measures.  Such 
an  event  did  not  take  place  till  a  hundred  and  twenty  years 
after  the  end  of  the  second  century,  when  Christianity  had 
become  the  established  religion  of  the  Roman  empire,  and 
the  first  general  council,  that  of  Nice,  was  called  together 
by  the  Emperor  Constantine.  At  the  time  of  which  we  are 
speaking,  Christians  were  spread  over  the  world  from  the 
Euphrates  to  the  Pillars  of  Hercules.  They  were  disturbed 
and  unsettled  by  frequent  cruel  persecutions,  one  of  which, 
that  under  Severus,  was  at  its  height  just  about  the  com- 
mencement of  the  third  century.  They  were  separated  from 
each  other  by  a  difhculty  and  consequent  infrequency  of  com- 
munication, of  which,  such  are  the  facilities  that  now  exist, 
we  can  hardly  form  a  just  notion.  They  were  kept  asunder 
by  difference  of  language ;  some  speaking  the  Greek,  some 
the  Latin,  and  others  different  languages  and  dialects  of  the 
East.  Exclusively  of  those  generally  considered  as  heretics, 
they  were  disunited  and  alienated  from  each  other  by  dif- 
ferences of  religious  opinion,  and  even  by  violent  controver- 
sies ;  for  it  was  before  the  end  of  the  second  century,  that 
Victor,  Bishop  of  Rome,  had  excommunicated  the  Eastern 
churches.  This  being  the  state  of  Christians  at  the  end  of 
the  second  century,  the  proposition  on  which  I  am  remarking 
supposes  that  they  corresponded  together,  and  came  to  an 
agreement  to  select  four  out  of  the  many  manuscript  gospels 
then  in  existence,  all  of  which  had  been  exposed  to  tho 
license  of  transcribers.  Of  these  four,  no  traces  are  to  be 
discovered  before  that  time;  but  it  was  determined  to  adopt 
them  for  common  use,  to  the  prejudice,  it  would  seem,  of 
others  longer  known,  and  to  which  different  portions  of 
Christians  had  respectively  been  accustomed.  There  was  a 
universal  and  silent  compliance  with  this  proposal.  Copies 
of  the  four  new  manuscripts,  and  translations  of  them,  were 


26  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

at  once  circulated  through  the  world.  All  others  ceased 
to  be  transcribed,  and  suddenly  disappeared  from  common 
notice.  Copiers  were  at  the  same  time  checked  in  their 
former  practice  of  licentious  alteration.  Thus  a  revolution 
was  effected  in  regard  to  the  most  important  sacred  books  of 
Christians,  and  at  the  same  time  better  habits  were  intro- 
duced among  the  transcribers  of  those  books. 

J  believe  it  will  be  seen,  that  I  have  stated  nothing  but 
w  hat  the  supposition  we  are  considering  necessarily  implies. 
But  when  we  divest  it  of  its  looseness  and  ambiguity  of  lan- 
guage, and  state  clearly  the  details  which  it  must  embrace,  no 
one  can  suppose  that  any  such  series  of  events  took  place  al 
the  end  of  the  second  century.  It  is  intrinsically  incredible ; 
but,  if  this  were  not  the  case,  we  might  urge  against  it  the 
fact,  that  there  is  no  record,  nor  any  trace  of  it.  It  is  sup- 
posed, that  a  change  was  effected  in  the  sacred  books  of 
Christians,  spread  abroad,  as  they  were,  throughout  the 
civilized  world.  Any  change  of  this  sort  could  not  be 
effected  without  great  difficulty,  under  the  most  favorable 
circumstances.  Let  us  consider  for  a  moment  what  an  effort 
would  be  required,  and  what  resistance  must  be  overcome,  in 
order  to  bring  into  general  use  among  a  single  nation  of 
Christians  at  the  present  day,  not  other  gospels,  but  simply  a 
new  and  better  translation  of  our  present  Gospels.  In  the 
case  under  consideration,  allowing  the  supposed  change  to 
have  been  possible,  it  must  have  met  with  great  opposition ; 
it  must  have  provoked  much  discussion  ;  it  must  have  been 
the  result  of  much  deliberation ;  there  must  have  been  a 
great  deal  written  about  it  at  the  time ;  it  must  have  been 
often  referred  to  afterwards,  especially  in  the  religious  con- 
troversies which  took  place ;  it  would  have  been  one  of  the 
most  important  events  in  the  history  of  Christians ;  and  the 
account  of  the  transaction  must  have  been  preserved.  There 
would  have  been  distinct  memorials  of  it  everywhere,  in  con- 
temporary and   subsequent   writings.      That   there   are   no 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         27 

traces  of  it  whatever  is  alone  conclusive  evidence  that  it 
never  took  place. 

But  we  may  even  put  out  of  view  all  the  preceding  con- 
siderations. "  The  Church,"  it  is  said,  "  about  the  end  of  the 
second  and  the  beginning  of  the  third  century,  first  labored 
to  procure  the  general  reception  of  the  four  Gospels  in  the 
Church."  By  the  Church  must  be  meant  the  great  body 
of  Christians.  The  general  reception  of  the  Gospels  was 
founded  upon  the  belief,  real  or  pretended,  of  their  being  the 
genuine  works  of  those  to  whom  they  were  ascribed.  The 
statement,  therefore,  resolves  itself  into  the  following  dilemma  : 
Either  the  great  body  of  Christians  determined  to  believe 
what  they  knew  to  be  false,  or  they  determined  to  profess  to 
believe  it.  The  first  proposition  is  an  absurdity  in  terms ; 
the  last  is  a  moral  absurdity. 

There  is,  then,  no  ground  for  the  supposition  of  any  inter- 
position of  authority,  or  of  any  concert  among  Christians, 
at  the  end  of  the  second  century,  to  select  our  present  Gos- 
pels for  common  use ;  or,  in  other  words,  to  select  from  the 
great  number  then  in  existence  four  particular  manuscripts, 
which  should  serve  as  archetypes  for  all  subsequent  tran- 
scribers, and  the  text  of  which  should  alone  be  considered  as 
the  authorized  text.  Our  present  agreement  of  authorities, 
which  necessarily  refers  us  back  to  one  manuscript  of  each 
of  the  Gospels  as  the  archetype  of  all  the  copies  of  that 
Gospel,  cannot  thus  be  explained.  We  are  left,  therefore,  to 
the  obvious  conclusion,  which  we  adopt  in  regard  to  other 
writings,  that  this  manuscript  was  the  original  work  of  an  in- 
dividual author,  which  has  been  faithfully  transmitted  to  us. 

The  argument  from  the  agreement  of  our  present  manu- 
script copies  of  the  Gospels  seems  alone  to  be  decisive  of  the 
truth  of  the  proposition  which  it  is  brought  to  establish. 
But  a  similar  mode  of  reasoning  maybe  applied  to  the  agree- 
ment between  the  very  numerous  manuscripts  of  the  Gospels 


S8  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

which  were  in  existence  at  the  end  of  the  second  century ; 
and,  as  it  was  before  this  period  that  transcribers  are  fancied 
to  have  taken  the  greatest  Hberties,  it  may  be  worth  while  to 
enter  into  the  detail  of  this  argument,  especially  as  it  is 
connected  with  the  proof  of  the  antiquity  of  the  Gospels. 

Our  present  Gospels,  it  is  conceded,  were  in  common  use 
among  Christians  about  the  end  of  the  second  century.  The 
number  of  manuscripts  then  in  existence  bore  some  propor* 
tion  to  the  number  of  Christians,  and  this  to  the  whole  popu 
lation  of  the  Roman  empire.  The  population  of  the  Roman 
empire  in  the  time  of  the  Antonines  is  estimated  by  Gibbon 
at  about  one  hundred  and  twenty  millions.*  With  regard  to 
the  proportion  of  Christians,  the  same  writer  observes,  "  The 
most  favorable  calculation  will  not  permit  us  to  imagine,  that 
more  than  a  twentieth  part  of  the  subjects  of  the  empire  had 
enlisted  themselves  under  the  banner  of  the  cross  before  the 
important  conversion  of  Constantine."  f  If  not  more  than  a 
twentieth  part  was  Christian  at  the  end  of  the  third  century, 
just  after  which  the  conversion  of  Constantine  took  place, 
we  can  hardly  estimate  more  than  a  fortieth  part  of  it  as 
Christian  at  the  end  of  the  second  century.  Yet  this  propor- 
tion seems  irreconcilable  with  the  language  which  we  find 
used  concerning  the  number  of  Christians.  Just  after  the 
close  of  the  first  century,  Pliny  was  sent  by  Trajan  to  govern 
the  provinces  of  Pontus  and  Bithynia.  While  exercising  his 
office,  many  accusations  were  brought  to  him  against  Chris- 
tians ;  and  he  wrote  to  the  emperor  to  consult  him  on  the 
subject :  — 

*' I  have  recourse,"  he  says,  "to  you  for  advice;  for  it  has 
appeared  to  me  a  subject  proper  to  consult  you  about,  especially 
on  account  of  the  number  of  those  against  whom  accusations  are 
brought.  For  many  of  all  ages,  of  every  rank,  and  of  both  sexes 
likewise,  have  been  and  will  be  accused.     The  contagion  of  this 

*  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire,  ch.  ii.        f  Ibid.,  ch.  xv 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  29 

superstition  has  made  its  way,  not  in  cities  only,  but  in  the  lesser 
towns  also,  and  in  the  open  country.  It  seems  to  me  that  it  may 
be  stopped  and  corrected.  It  is  certain,  that  the  temples,  which 
were  almost  deserted,  begin  to  be  frequented ;  and  the  sacred 
solemnities  are  revived  after  a  long  intermission.  Victims  like- 
wise are  everywhere  sold,  of  which,  till  lately,  there  were  but 
very  few  purchasers."  * 

There  is  no  reason  to  suppose,  that  Christians  were  moie 
numerous  in  Pontus  and  Bithynia  than  in  any  other  part  of 
Asia  Minor,  or  in  Macedonia,  or  in  Greece.  Yet,  if  we  sup- 
pose them  to  have  constituted  but  a  fortieth  or  even  a  twen- 
tieth part  of  the  inhabitants,  there  would  be  an  extravagance 
in  the  statements  of  Pliny,  not  to  be  expected  in  an  official 
letter,  written  for  the  purpose  of  affording  facts  to  the  em- 
peror, on  which  to  found  specific  directions.  I  pass  over 
much  other  evidence  with  respect  to  the  number  of  Chris- 
tians ;  t  and  will  quote  only  one  or  two  passages  from  Ter- 
tullian,  who  wrote  at  the  particular  period  which  we  are 
considering,  about  the  year  200.  In  speaking  of  the  sub- 
mission of  Christians  to  the  civil  authority  by  which  they 
were  persecuted,  he  remarks,  that  it  may  clearly  appear  to  be 
the  result  of  the  patience  taught  them  by  their  religion ;  — 

** considering,"  he  says,  "that  we,  so  great  a  multitude  of  men, 
almost  the  majority  of  every  city,  pass  our  lives  silently  and 
modestly,  more  known,  perhaps,  as  individuals  than  as  a  body, 
and  to  be  recognized  only  by  our  reformation  from  ancient 
vices."  J 

Again,  in  addressing  those  who  governed  the  Roman  empire, 
he  says :  — 

*  W(;  are  but  of  yesterday,  and  we  have  filled  every  thing  that 
is  yours,  —  cities,  islands,  castles,  free  towns,  council-halls,  the  very 


*  Plinii  Epist.,  lib.  x.  epist.  97. 

t  See  Paley's  Evidences  of  Christianity,  p.  ii.  c-  ix. 

X  Ad  Scapulam,  §  2,  p.  69,  ed.  Priorii. 


30  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

camps,  all  classes  of  men,  the  palace,  the  senate,  the  forum.  We 
have  left  you  nothing  but  your  temples.  We  can  number  your 
armies :  there  are  more  Christians  in  a  single  province.  Even  if 
unequal  in  force,  is  there  any  war  for  which  we,  who  so  readily 
submit  to  death,  should  not  be  prepared,  or  not  prompt,  if  our 
religion  did  not  teach  us  rather  to  be  slain  than  to  slay?  Un- 
armed and  without  rebellion,  had  we  only  separated  from  you, 
we  might  thus  have  fought  against  you,  by  inllicting  the  injury 
which  you  would  have  suffered  from  the  divorce.  If  we,  such  a 
multitude  of  men,  had  broken  away  from  you,  retiring  into  some 
remote  corner  of  the  world,  your  government  would  have  been 
covered  with  shame  at  the  loss  of  so  many  citizens,  whoever  they 
might  be.  The  very  desertion  would  have  punished  you.  With- 
out doubt,  you  would  hav.e  been  terrified  at  your  solitude ;  at  the 
silence  and  stupor  of  all  things,  as  if  the  world  were  dead.  You 
would  have  had  to  look  about  for  subjects."  * 

This,  it  may  be  said,  is  the  language  of  exaggeration :  un- 
questionably it  is  so.  But  Tertullian  was  a  writer  of  far  too 
much  acuteness  and  too  much  real  eloquence  to  suffer  the 
boldness  and  vehemence  of  his  language  to  pass  those  limits, 
beyond  which  their  only  effect  must  have  been  to  expose  him 
to  derision.  The  very  passage  which  I  have  quoted  shows 
that  he  was  a  man  of  no  ordinary  mind.  But,  as  far  as  its 
exaggeration  is  concerned,  the  most  unwise  and  most  impu- 
dent of  declaimers  would  not  have  so  stated  the  number  of 
Christians,  if  it  did  not  amount  to  more  than  a  fortieth  part 
of  the  whole  population  of  the  empire,  —  exclusively  of  those 
denominated  heretics,  who  were  few  in  comparison  with  catho- 
lic Christians.  I  accept,  however,  this  proportion  ;  and  only 
wish  it  to  be  well  understood,  that  it  is  fairly  within  the 
truth  ;  probably  falling  very  far  short  of  it.  The  conclusion 
to  be  established  admits  of  great  wastefulness  in  the  calcula- 
tions leading  to  it.  The  fortieth  part  of  one  hundred  and 
twenty  millions,  the  estimated  population  of  the  empire,  is 

*  Apologeticus  aclversus  Gentes,  §  37.    See  Semler's  Ed.,  torn.  v.  p.  90. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  31 

ihree  millions.  There  were  Christians  without  the  hounds  of 
ihe  empire,  hut  I  am  willing  to  include  those  also  in  the  num- 
ber supposed.  At  the  end  of  the  second  century,  then,  there 
were  three  millions  of  believers,  using  our  present  Gospels, 
•-egarding  them  with  the  highest  reverence,  and  anxious  to 
obtain  copies  of  them.  Few  possessions  could  have  been  more 
valued  by  a  Christian  than  a  copy  of  those  books,  which  con- 
titined  the  history  of  the  religion  for  which  he  was  exposing 
himself  to  the  severest  sacrifices.  Their  cost,  if  lie  were  able 
lo  defray  it,  must  have  been  but  a  very  trifling  consideration. 
But  a  common  copy  of  the  Gospels  was  not  a  book  of  any 
great  bulk  or  expense.*     I  shall  not,  therefore,  I  think,  be 


*  That  the  cost  of  books  in  ancient  times  was  not  excessive,  may  appear, 
In  part,  from  the  circumstance,  that  Juvenal  describes  them  as  among  the 
possessions  of  Codrus,  whom  he  represents  as  extremely  poor.  They  were 
a  part  of  his  totum  nihil. 

"  Jamque  vetus  Graecos  servabat  cista  libellos."  —  Sat.  iii.  206. 

But  it  is  remarkable  how  little  exact  information  is  to  be  found  respecting 
the  cost  of  books  in  ancient  times.  "  The  prices,"  says  Arbuthnot,  "  which 
I  find  mentioned  b}^  the  ancients,  are  'or  such  as  were  maimscripts  in  our 
sense,  —  that  is,  not  published,  —and  valuable  for  the  rarity  of  them."  Mar- 
tial, however  (lib  i.  epig.  118),  states  the  cost  of  the  first  book  of  his  Epigrams, 
or  perhaps  of  the  first  and  second  (lib.  ii  epig.  93),  in  an  ornamented  copy, 
rasum pujtiice, puijnudqtie  cultum,  at  five  denarii;  which,  taking  silver  as  the 
standard  of  comparison,  is  equal  to  about  seventy-two  cents,  American  money. 
This  was  a  book  for  the  luxurious.  A  copy  of  any  one  of  the  Gospels  might 
probably  have  been  bought  at  a  much  cheaper  rate  in  proportion  to  its  size. 
The  price  of  Martial's  thirteenth  book,  which  contains  far  less  matter  than  the 
first,  but  amounts  to  two  hundred  and  seventy-two  verses,  he  states  to  have 
been  four  sestertii;  or,  if  that  were  thought  too  much,  two  sestertii,  which  he 
says  would  still  leave  a  profit  to  the  bookseller  (lib.  xiii.  epig.  3).  Two 
sestertii  were  half  a  denarius;  that  is,  about  seven  cents.  We  sometimes  con- 
found the  state  of  things  in  the  Middle  Ages,  when  there  was  a  great  scarcity 
of  books,  with  that  which  existed  in  the  flourishing  times  of  Greek  and  Roman 
literature.  It  would  be  a  still  greater  mistake  to  suppose  that  the  number  of 
Greek  manuscripts  of  the  Gospels  extant  during  that  period  in  Western  Eu- 
rope, where  the  Greek  was  almost  an  unknoAvn  tongue,  affords  any  means  of 
determining  the  number  in  existence  when  the  Greek  was  a  living  language, 
and  a  medium  of  communication  tliroughout  the  civilized  world. 


32  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

charged  with  over-estimating,  if  I  suppose  that  there  was  one 
copy  of  the  Gospels  for  every  fifty  Christians.  Scattered  over 
the  world,  as  they  were,  if  the  proportion  of  them  to  the 
heathens  was  no  greater  than  has  been  assumed,  fifty  Chris- 
tians would  often  be  as  many  as  were  to  be  found  in  any  one 
place,  and  often  more  ;  but  we  cannot  suppose  that  there  \^ere 
many  collections  of  Christians  without  a  copy  of  the  Gospels. 
Origen,  upon  quoting  a  passage  from  the  New  Testament, 
says  that  it  is  written  not  "  in  any  rare  books,  read  only  by  a 
few  studious  persons,  but  in  those  in  the  most  common  use."* 
Id  truth,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  copies  of  the  Gospels 
were  owned  by  a  large  portion  of  Christians,  who  had  the 
means  of  procuring  them ;  and  in  supposing  only  .one  copy  of 
these  books  for  every  fifty  Christians,  the  estimate  is  probably 
much  within  the  truth.  This  proportion,  however,  will  give 
us  sixty  thousand  copies  of  the  Guspels  for  three  millions  of 
Christians. 

This  number  of  copies  may  strike  some,  who  have  never 
before  made  any  estimate  of  the  kind,  as  larger  than  was  to 
be  expected.  But  the  following  facts  may  serve  to  show  that 
the  calculation  is  not  extravagant.  In  the  latter  part  of  the 
second  century,  a  history  of  Christ  was  compiled  by  Tatian, 
professedly,  as  is  commonly  believed,  from  the  four  Gospels. 
Tatian  was  a  heretic,  and  his  work  never  obtained  much 
reputation  or  currency.  Eusebius,  the  historian  of  the 
Church  in  the  first  half  of  the  fourth  century,  is  the  earliest 
writer  who  mentions  it.  His  acquaintance  with  books  was 
extensive ;  yet  he  appears  not  to  have  examined  it.  At  the 
present  day,  no  copy  of  it  is  known  to  be  in  existence.  Yet 
of  this  obscure  work,  Theodoret,  Bishop  of  Cyrus  in  the  fifth 
century,  says  that  he  found  two  hundred  copies  in  use  among 
Christian  churches,  which  he  removed,  and  supplied  their 


*  'Ev  Tol^  6r}fj.cj6£OT£OOLg.  —  Orig.  cont.  Cels.,  lib.  vii.  §  37;  0pp.  i.  720, 
ed.  Delarue. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  83 

place  by  copies  of  the  Gospels.*  It  appears,  then,  that,  in 
churches  to  which  the  examination  of  a  single  bishop 
extended,  there  were  two  hundred  copies  of  a  book  of 
suspicious  credit,  and  not  in  common  use;  and  that  the 
place  of  these  was  readily  supplied  by  copies  of  the  Gos- 
pels. This  fact  is  one  of  those  which  may  serve  to  show 
that  the  estimate  of  the  whole  number  of  copies  of  the 
Gospels  existing  at  the  end  of  the  second  century  is  far 
from  being  too  great. 

Again,  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,t  it  is  related,  that,  of 
those  who  had  become  converts  to  Christianity  in  Ephesus 
and  its  neighborhood,  some  had  been  addicted  to  the  study  of 
magic.  After  their  conversion,  they  brought  togetl^r  their 
books  relating  to  this  subject,  to  be  burnt ;  and  the  value  of 
them  is  said  to  have  been  fifty  thousand  pieces  of  silver.  If, 
as  is  probable,  by  "  pieces  of  silver  "  is  to  be  understood  cisto- 
phori,  a  common  Asiatic  coin  and  money  of  account,  the  sum 
mentioned  amounts  to  about  four  thousand  two  hundred  and 
fifty  dollars.  Books  of  magic,  whatever  may  be  here  in- 
tended by  that  name,  would  be  sold  at  a  high  price.  But  we 
cannot  reasonably  suppose  those  works  on  magic  to  have  been 
the  larger  portion  of  the  books  owned  by  the  converts  of 
Ephesus  and  its  vicinity  at  this  early  period.  Such  being  the 
case,  we  may  infer  that  the  number  of  copies  of  the  Gospels 
in  use  among  Christians  at  the  end  of  the  second  century  did 
not  fall  short  of  that  which  has  been  estimated,  but  probably 
far  exceeded  it. 

There  were,  then,  at  the  end  of  the  second  century,  when 
it  is  agreed  that  the  Gospels  were  in  common  use,  at  least 
sixty  thousand  copies  of  them  dispersed  over  the  world. 
These  copies  had  not  been  subjected  to  the  licentious  altera- 
tions  of  transcribers.      They  agreed  essentially  with  each 


*  Theodoret.  Haeret.  Fab.,  lib.  i.  c.  20;  0pp.  iv.  208,  ed.  Sirmond. 
t  Chap.  xix.  ver.  19. 

8 


34  GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS. 

Other.  This  is  implied  in  the  fact  that  they  were  copies  of 
our  present  Gospels.  It  is  made  evident  by  the  considera- 
tion, that,  if  there  had  been  important  discrepancies  among 
these  sixty  thousand  copies,  no  series  of  events  could  either 
have  destroyed  the  evidence  of  these  discrepancies,  or  could 
have  produced  the  present  agreement  among  existing  copies, 
derived,  as  they  are,  from  those  in  use  at  the  period  in  ques- 
tion. The  agreement,  then,  at  the  end  of  the  second  century, 
among  the  numerous  copies  of  the  respective  Gospels,  proves 
that  an  archetype  of  each  Gospel  had  been  faithfully  followed 
by  transcribers.  This  archetype,  as  we  have  seen,  there  is  no 
ground  for  imagining  to  have  been  any  other  than  the  origi- 
nal wo^k  of  the  author  of  that  Gospel.  It  follows,  therefore, 
that,  in  the  interval  between  the  composition  of  these  works 
and  the  end  of  the  second  century,  their  text  did  not  suffer, 
as  has  been  fancied,  from  the  licentiousness  of  transcribers. 

But  it  must  have  taken  a  long  time,  —  I  use  an  indefinite 
expression,  to  which  there  can  be  no  objection,  leaving  it  to 
every  one  to  fix  such  a  period  as  he  may  think  most  probable, 
—  it  must  have  taken  a  long  time  for  the  Gospels  to  obtain  so 
established  and  extensive  a  reputation,  to  come  into  common 
use  as  sacred  books  among  Christians  throughout  the  civilized 
world,  and  for  such  a  number  of  copies  of  them  to  be  made. 
They  must  have  been  composed,  therefore,  a  long  time  before 
the  end  of  the  second  century  ;  or,  rather,  before  the  year  180, 
about  which  period  Irenseus  wrote,  who  asserts  their  general 
reception  and  acknowledged  authority,  in  as  strong  language 
as  any  Christian  would  use  at  the  present  day.  It  follows, 
then,  from  all  that  has  been  said,  that,  long  before  the  latter 
part  of  the  second  century,  our  present  Gospels  were  com- 
posed by  four  different  authors,  whose  works  obtained  general 
reception  among  Christians  as  authentic  histories  and  sacred 
books,  and  were  everywhere  spread  and  handed  down,  without 
any  essential  alterations  from  transcribers. 


CHAPTER    11. 

ARGUMENTS    DRAWN    FROM    OTHER    CONSIDERATIONS. 

Beside  the  argument  already  adduced,  there  are  others   to 
which  we  will  now  advert. 

T.  It  would  have  been  inconsistent  with  the  common  sei.ti- 
ments  and  practice  of  mankind  for  transcribers  to  make  such 
alterations  and  additions  as  have  been  imagined,  in  the  sncred 
books  which  they  were  copying.  No  one  can  be  so  dull  as 
not  to  feel  the  propriety  and  importance  of  preserving  the 
genuine  text  of  books  which  are  regarded  as  works  of 
authority,  or  as  possessing  a  peculiar  character  in  conse- 
quence of  their  having  been  composed  by  a  particular  author. 
In  proportion  as  a  work  is  of  higher  autliority,  this  sentiment 
will  be  stronger.  It  would  be  idle  to  imagine,  that  the  habit 
of  making  additions  and  alterations  at  will,  which  is  attributed 
to  the  transcribers  of  the  Gospels,  was  common  in  ancient 
times,  and  practised  in  the  transcription  of  other  writings ; 
the  histories,  for  instance,  of  Thucydides  or  Tacitus.  But, 
with  the  great  body  of  believers,  the  Gospels  were  peculiarly 
guarded  from  corruption;  and  what  we  apprehend  so  little 
concerning  other  writings  is  still  less  to  be  apprehended  con- 
cerning them.     The  Christians  "^  of  the  first  two  centuries,  it 


*  By  "  the  Christians  "  I  mean,  here  and  elsewhere,  the  great  body  of  be- 
lievers, the  generality  of  Christians,  the  catholic  Christians.     Conformably  to 


36  EVIDENCES    OF   THE 

cannot  be  doubted,  valued  very  highly  their  sacred  books 
and  none  more  highly  than  those  which  contained  records  of 
the  actions  and  discourses  of  Christ.  But  they  valued  them 
as  sacred  books,  and  as  authentic  histories,  and  not  as  the 
patcliwork  of  unknown  transcribers.  They  would  not,  there- 
fore, suffer  them  gradually  to  assume  the  latter  character. 
They  would  not  cause  or  permit  alterations  and  additions  to 
be  silently  introduced  into  books  of  history,  the  authenticity 
of  which  would  be  thus  destroyed;  and  sacred  books,  the 
peculiar  character  of  which  would,  in  consequence,  be  lost. 
To  interpolate  or  alter  any  thing  in  books  of  the  latter  kind 
has  commonly  been  considered  as  a  crime,  bordering  upon 
sacrilege.  This  sentiment  may  be  counteracted  in  a  certain 
degree  ;  but  it  is  a  very  general,  a  very  natural,  and  a  very 
strong  one.  The  care  of  any  community  in  preserving  their 
sacred  books  from  corruption  will  be  proportioned  to  the 
value  which  they  set  upon  those  books  ;  and  the  degree 
in  which  they  value  them  will  be  proportioned  to  the  interest 
which  they  feel  in  their  religion.  But  no  men  ever  felt  that 
mterest  more  strongly  than  the  Christians  of  the  first  two 
centuries.  There  is  therefore,  as  we  might  expect,  abundant 
evidence  extant  in  their  writings,  that  they  had  as  great 
reverence  for  the  sacred  books  of  our  religion,  and  were  as 
little  disposed  to  make  or  to  suffer  an  admixture  of  foreign 
matter  with  their  genuine  text,  as  Christians  of  the  present 
day.     I  will  quote  a  few  passages  in  proof  of  this  fact. 

The  first  writer  by  whom  any  one  of  the  Gospels  is  ex- 
pressly mentioned  is  Papias,  wlio  lived  about  the  beginning 
of  the  second  century,*  a  contemporary  of  the  disciples  of  the 


Its  common  use  in  speaking  of  the  first  ages  of  Christianity,  I  use  the  name 
as  a  general,  not  a  universal  term.  I  do  not  mean  to  include  under  it  the 
heretical  sects  of  the  Ebionites  and  the  Gnostics,  to  whom  all  the  assertions 
made  respecting  "  the  Christians"  do  not  apply.  The  evidence  which  those 
■ects  afford  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels  will  be  considered  hereafter. 
*  The  assertion  of  Eichhorn,  that  we  find  no  traces  of  our  first  three  Gos- 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         37 

apostles.  He  speaks  particularly  of  the  Gospels  of  Matthew 
and  Mark,  afhrming  that  they  were  composed  by  those  indi- 
viduals, and  that  the  Gospel  of  Mark  was  founded  on  the 
oral  narratives  of  Peter.  He  applies  to  them  the  title  of 
oracles.^  The  respect  in  which  they  were  held  appears  frcm 
this  title,  and  from  the  authors  to  whom  they  were  referred. 
Christians  would  neither  corrupt  such  works,  nor  suffer  them 
to  be  corrupted. 

About  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  Justin  Martyr 
describes  the  histories  of  Christ  which  he  used  as  written  by 
apostles  and  their  companions,!  by  those  whom  Christians 
believed.  $  He  says,  that  either  these  books,  or  the  writings 
of  the  Jewish  prophets,  were  read  in  Christian  churches  on 
the  first  day  of  every  week.§  He  everywhere  appeals  to 
them  as  of  undoubted  authority.  They  were  regarded  by 
him,  we  may  infer,  as  entitled  to  at  least  equal  reverence 
with  the  Jewish  Scriptures.  But  in  the  dialogue  which  he 
represents  himself  as  having  held  with  Trypho,  an  unbe- 
lieving Jew,  he  charges  the  Jews  with  having  expunged 
certain  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  relating  to  Christ. 
To  this  Trypho  answers,  that  the  charge  seems  to  him  in- 
credible. Justin  replies  :  *•'  It  does  seem  incredible ;  for  to 
mutilate  the  Scriptures  would  be  a  more  fearful  crime  than 
the  worship  of  the  golden  calf,  or  than  the  sacrifice  of  children 

pels  before  the  end  of  the  second  century,  can  be  reconciled  with  well-known 
and  undisputed  facts  only  by  supposing  that  our  present  Gospels  of  Matthew, 
Mark,  and  Luke  have  been  so  corrupted  as  not  to  be  essentially  the  same 
with  those  which  anciently  bore  their  names.  —  I  scarcely  know  whether  it  is 
worth  while  to  observe,  that  Eichhorn  repeatedly  quotes  the  mention  by  Pa- 
pias  of  the  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Mark.  In  one  place,  he  says,  that,  "  long 
before  the  end  of  the  second  centur}-,  the  authors  of  the  first  three  Gospels  are 
named  as  authors  of  narratives  of  the  life  of  Jesus ;  as,  for  example,  Matthew 
and  Mark  are  so  named  by  Papias."  —  Einleitung  in  d.  N.  T.,  vol.  i.  (2d  ed.) 
p.  684. 

*  Apud  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  iii.  c.  39. 

t  Dial,  cum  'ir>'ph.,  p.  361,  ed.  Thirlb. 

X  Apolog.  Prim.,  p.  54.  §  Ibid.,  p.  97. 


38  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

to  demons,  or  than  slaying  the  prophets  themselves."  *  It  is 
not  probable  that  Christians  were  tampering  with  their  own 
sacred  books  at  a  time  when  they  had  such  feelings  respect- 
ing those  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  histories  of  Christ 
used  by  Justin,  I  shall  hereafter  show,  were  our  present 
Gospels. 

Some  of  the  heretics  in  the  second  century  made,  or  were 
charged  with  making,  alterations  in  the  Christian  Scriptures, 
in  order  to  accommodate  them  to  their  own  opinions.  Of 
such  corrupters  of  Scripture,  Dionysius,  who  was  bishop 
of  Corinth  about  the  year  1 70,  thus  speaks :  "  I  have  written 
epistles  at  the  desire  of  the  brethren.  But  the  apostles  of 
the  Devil  have  filled  them  with  darnel,  taking  out, some  things, 
and  adding  others.  Against  such,  a  woe  is  denounced.  It  is 
not  wonderful,  therefore,  that  some  have  undertaken  to  cor- 
rupt the  Scriptures  of  the  Lord,  since  they  have  corrupted 
writings  not  to  be  compared  with  them."  f  The  meaning 
of  Dionysius  is,  that,  the  persons  spoken  of  having  shown 
their  readiness  to  commit  such  a  crime,  it  was  not  strange 
that  they  should  even  corrupt  the  Scriptures;  these  being 
works  of  much  higher  authority  than  his  epistles,  and  from 
the  falsification  of  which  more  advantage  was  to  be  rained. 
We  perceive  how  strongly  he  expresses  his  sense  of  the  guilt 
of  such  corruption ;  a  sentiment  common,  witliout  doubt,  to 
a  great  majority  of  Christians.  When  Dionysius  wrote,  it 
clearly  could  not  have  been  esteemed  innocent,  and  a  matter 
of  indifference,  for  transcribers  to  make  intentional  altera- 
nons  in  their  copies  of  the  Gospels.  Yet  this  is  one  of  the 
passages  which  have  been  adduced  to  show  that  such  was 
their  common  practice.l  But,  as  we  have  no  reason  to  doubt 
that  the  prevailing  sentiment  was  that  which  Dionysius  has 
expressed,  we  may  confidently  infer  that  Christians  did  not 


*  Dial,  cum  Tryph.,  p.  296.        f  Apud  Euseb.  H.  E.,  lib.  iv.  c.  23. 
I  Seo  before,  p.  8. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  39 

generally  practise  or  permit  what  was  esteemed  a  work  of 
"  the  apostles  of  the  Devil,"  and  one  "  against  which  a  woe 
was  denounced." 

"We  have  not  received,"  says  his  contemporary,  Irenasus, 
"  the  knowledge  of  the  way  of  our  salvation  by  any  others 
than  those  through  whom  the  Gospel  has  come  down  to  us ; 
which  Gospel  they  first  preached,  and  afterwards,  by  the  will 
oi  God,  transmitted  to  us  in  writing,  that  it  might  be  the 
foundation  and  .pillar  of  our  ftxith."*  He  immediately  pro- 
ceeds to  speak  particularly  of  the  composition  of  the  four 
Gospels,  referring  them  to  the  authors  to  whom  they  are 
commonly  ascribed.  These  books  he  afterwards  represents 
as  the  most  important  books  of  Scripture ;  t  and  the  Scrip- 
tures he  calls  "oracles  of  God."  |  —  "We  know,"  he  says, 
•*  that  the  Scriptures  are  perfect,  as  dictated  by  the  Logos  of 
God,  and  his  spirit."  § 

Such  passages  show  the  reverence  in  which  the  Scriptures 
were  held,  and  the  feelings  with  which  any  corruption  of 
them  must  have  been  regarded.  They  are  likewise  irrecon- 
cilable with  the  supposition,  that  the  Gospels  had  but  just 
appeared  in  their  present  form;  and  that,  previously,  those 
who  possessed  copies  of  these  books  had  regarded  them  only 
•*  as  an  article  of  private  property,  in  which  any  alterations 
were  allowable."  ||  If  the  Gospels  had  been  partly  the  work 
of  unknown  transcribers,  the  fact  must  have  been  notorious ; 
and  no  writer,  of  whatever  character,  would  have  ventured 
to  use  such  language  as  that  of  Irenceus. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  his  contemporary,  calls  the  Scrip- 
tures divinely  inspired,1[  divine  and  holy  books.**  He  speaks 
of  the  four  Gospels,  in  contradistinction  from  all  other  ac- 


*  Cont.  H£Eres.,  lib.  iii.  c.  1,  p.  173,  ed.  Massuet. 
t  lb.,  lib.  iii.  c.  11,  §  8,  p.  190.  f  lb.,  lib.  i.  c.  8,  §  1,  p.  35 

§  lb.,  lib.  ii.  c.  28,  §  2,  p.  156.  |i  See  before,  p.  8. 

T  Slromat.,  lib.  vii.  §  16,  p.  894,  ed.  Potter. 
**  Paedagog.,  lib.  iii.  c.  12,  p.  309. 


40  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

counts  of  Christ,  as  having  been  handed  down  to  the  Chris- 
tians of  his  age ;  *  and  he  gives  an  account  of  the  order  of 
succession  in  wliich  they  were  composed,  saying  that  this 
account  was  derived  from  the  presbyters  of  former  times,  f 

Tertullian  manifests  the  same  reverence  for  the  Scriptures, 
and  especially  for  the  Gospels,  as  his  contemporaries,  Irenaeus 
and  Clement.  He,  like  them,  quotes  the  Gospels  as  works 
of  decisive  authority,  in  the  same  manner  as  any  modern 
theologian  might  do.  He  wrote  much  against  the  heretic 
Marcion,  whom  he  charges  with  having  rejected  the  other 
Gospels,  and  having  mutilated  the  Gospel  of  Luke  to  con- 
form it  to  his  system.  This  leads  him  to  make  some  state- 
ments which  have  a  direct  bearing  on  the  present  subject. 
*'  I  affirm,"  says  Tertullian,  "  that  not  only  in  the  churches 
founded  by  apostles,  but  in  all  which  have  fellowship  with 
them,  that  Gospel  of  Luke,  which  we  so  steadfastly  defend, 
has  been  received  from  its  first  publication."  —  "The  same 
authority,"  he  adds,  "  of  the  apostolic  churches  will  support 
the  other  Gospels,  which,  in  like  manner,  we  have  from  them, 
conformably  to  their  copies."  $  —  "They,"  he  says,  "who  were 
resolved  to  teach  otherwise  than  the  truth,  were  under  a 
oecessity  of  new-modelling  the  records  of  the  doctrine."  —  "As 
they  could  not  have  succeeded  in  corrupting  the  doctrine 
without  corrupting  its  records,  so  we  could  not  have  preserved 
and  transmitted  the  doctrine  in  its  integrity,  but  by  preserving 
the  integrity  of  its  records."  § 

I  quote  only  a  few  short  passages  from  Christian  writers, 
and  those  which  have  the  most  immediate  relation  to  my 
present  purpose;  because  I  shall  hereafter  have  occasion  to 
show,  more  at  length,  the  general  reception  of  the  Gospels, 
and  the  reverence  in  which  they  were  held,  at  the  end  of  the 


*  Stromat..  lib.  iii.  §  13,  p.  553.        f  Apud  Euseb.  H.  E.,  lib.  vi.  c  14. 
X  Advers.  Marcion.,  lib.  iv.  §  5,  pp.  415,  416,  ed.  Priorli. 
§  De  Prajscript.  Hairet ,  §  38,  p.  216. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         41 

second  century.  The  following  is  from  an  anonymous  writer 
against  the  heresy  of  Artemon.  He  accuses  those  who  main- 
tained this  heresy,  of  corrupting  the  Scriptures,  and  adds : 
''  How  daring  a  crime  this  is,  they  can  hardly  be  ignorant : 
for  either  they  do  not  believe  that  the  divine  Scriptures  were 
dictated  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  —  and  then  they  are  infidels;  or 
they  believe  themselves  wiser  than  the  Holy  Spirit,  —  and 
what  are  they  then  but  madmen?"*  Origen,  in  like  manner, 
regarded  the  Scriptures  as  dictated  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  He 
has  many  passages  which  correspond  to  the  following,  from 
one  of  his  commentaries :  "  After  this,  Mark  says  [x.  50], 
And  he^  casting  away  his  garment,  leaped,  and  came  to  Jesus. 
Did  the  evangelist  write  without  thought,  when  he  related 
that  the  man  cast  away  his  garment,  and  leaped,  and  came  to 
Jesus  ?  Or  shall  we  dare  to  say,  that  this  was  inserted  in  the 
Gospel  without  purpose  ?  I  believe  that  not  one  jot  or  one 
tittle  of  the  divine  instructions  is  without  purpose."  t 

In  commenting  upon  Matt.  xix.  19,  Origen  suspects,  for 
reasons  which  it  is  unnecessary  to  state,  the  genuineness  of 
the  words.  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself;  but  he 
says,  that,  if  it  were  not  for  the  number  of  various  readings 
found  in  different  copies  of  the  Gospels,  "  it  might  well  seem 
irreverent  in  any  one  to  suspect  that  the  precept  has  been 
inserted  here,  without  its  having  been  mentioned  by  the 
Saviour."  % 

The  passages  quoted  show  the  state  of  opinion  and  feeling 
among  Christians  during  the  first  two  centuries.  They  have 
been  alleged  to  prove  nothing  in  itself  improbable,  but,  on 
the  contrary,  the  existence  of  sentiments  which  it  is  incredible 
should  not  have  existed.  But  it  is  clear,  that  those  who  enter- 
tained them  would  neither  make  nor  permit  intentional  altera 
tions  in  the  Gospels. 

*  A  pud  Euseb.  H.  E.,  lib.  v.  c.  28. 

i-  Comment,  in  Matt.,  torn.  xvi.  §  12;  0pp.  iii.  734. 

X  Comment,  in  Matt.,  torn.  xv.  §  14;  0pp.  iii.  671. 


42  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

II.  About  the  close  of  the  second  century,  different  Chris- 
tian writers  express  strong  censure  of  the  mutilations  and 
changes  which  they  charge  some  heretics,  particularly  Mar- 
cion,  with  having  made  in  the  Gospels,  and  other  books  of 
the  New  Testament.  Some  passages  to  this  effect  have  been 
quoted.  It  is  unnecessary  to  adduce  others,  because  the  fact 
is  well  known  and  universally  admitted.  The  feeling  ex- 
pressed by  those  writers  was  common,  without  doubt,  to 
Christians  generally.  But  they  could  not  have  felt,  or  have 
expressed  themselves,  as  they  did,  if  their  own  copies  of  the 
Gospels  had  been  left,  as  is  imagined,  at  the  mercy  of  tran- 
scribers, and  there  had  been  such  a  disagreement  as  must  in 
consequence  have  existed  among  them.  What  text  of  their 
own  would  they  have  had  to  oppose  to  the  text  of  Marcion, 
or  of  any  other  heretic  ?  What  would  they  have  had  to  bring 
forward,  but  a  collection  of  discordant  manuscripts,  many  of 
them,  probably,  differing  as  much  from  each  other  as  the 
altered  gospels  of  the  heretics  did  from  any  one  of  them? 
If  our  Gospels  had  not  existed,  in  their  present  form,  till  the 
close  of  the  second  century ;  if,  before  that  time,  their  text 
had  been  fluctuating,  and  assuming  in  different  copies  a  differ- 
ent form,  such  as  transcribers  might  choose  to  give  it,  —  those 
by  whom  they  were  used  could  not  have  ventured  to  speak 
with  such  confidence  of  the  alterations  of  the  heretics.  They 
must  have  apprehended  too  strongly  the  overwhelming  retort, 
to  which  they  lay  so  exposed,  and  against  which  they  were  so 
defenceless.  If,  however,  any  one  can  imagine  that  they  really 
would  have  been  bold  enough  to  make  the  charges  which  they 
do  against  heretics,  yet  in  this  case  they  must  at  least  have 
shown  strong  solicitude  to  guard  the  point  where  they  them- 
selves were  so  liable  to  attack.  But  no  trace  of  such  solicitude 
appears. 

III.  We  happen  to  have,  in  the  works  of  a  single  writer, 
decisive  evidence  that  no  such  differences  ever  Axi^ted  in  the 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  43 

manuscripts  of  the  Gospels  as  are  supposed  in  the  hypothesis 
under  consideration,  and  consequently  that  no  such  liberties 
as  have  been  imagined  were  ever  taken  by  their  transcribers. 
Origen  was  born  about  the  year  185,  and  flourished  during 
the  first  half  of  the  third  century,  dying  about  the  year  254. 
Hi)  was  particularly  skilled  in  the  criticism  of  the  Scriptures. 
His  labors  upon  the  text  of  the  Septuagint  are  well  known. 
He  had  in  his  possession,  or  had  the  means  of  consulting, 
various  manuscripts  of  the  Gospels,  of  which  he  made  a  crit- 
ical use,  noticing  their  various  readings.  His  notices  are 
principally  found  in  commentaries,  which  he  wrote  on  the 
Gospels.  Under  these  circumstances,  if  the  manuscripts  of 
the  first  and  second  centuries  had  differed  from  each  other  as 
much  as  has  been  imagined,  we  should  expect  to  find  distinct 
evidence  of  the  fact  in  the  voluminous  writings  of  this  early 
father.  But  this  is  not  the  case.  On  the  contrary,  the  lan- 
guage which  he  uses,  and  the  kind  of  various  readings  which 
he  actually  adduces,  prove  that  he  was  ignorant  of  any  such 
diversities  as  have  been  fancied.  But  he  could  not  have  been 
ignorant  of  them,  if  they  had  existed.  The  various  readings 
which  he  mentions  are  all  unimportant  variations.  The 
greater  part  of  them  are  still  extant  in  our  manuscripts.  He 
remarks  upon  no  such  diversities  as  must  have  existed,  if 
transcribers  had  indulged  in  such  licentious  alterations  as 
have  been  supposed.  On  the  contrary,  the  citations  and 
remarks  of  Origen  are  adapted  to  produce  a  conviction,  that 
the  manuscripts  of  his  time  differed,  to  say  the  least,  as  little 
from  each  other,  as  the  manuscripts  now  extant ;  and,  con- 
sequently, that  before  his  time  there  was  the  same  care  to 
preserve  the  original  text  as  there  has  been  since. 

This  conviction  is  not  weakened  by  a  passage  in  his  writ- 
ings, which  may  seem  at  first  view  to  favor  the  opposite 
opinion.     The  passage  has  been  already  referred  to,*  in  this 

*  See  before,  p.  41. 


44  EVIDENCES   OP  THE 

chapter,  for  the  purpose  of  proving  the  reverence  in  which 
the  Gospels  were  held ;  but  we  will  now  attend  to  it  a  little 
more  particularly.  Origen,  as  has  been  said,  was  led,  by 
a  course  of  reasoning  of  considerable  subtilty,  to  doubt  the 
genuineness  of  the  words  (Matt.  xix.  19),  Thou  shalt  love 
thy  neighbor  as  thyself.  After  stating  his  arguments  at  some 
length,  he  says :  — 

"  But  if  it  were  not  that  in  many  other  passages  there  is  a  dif- 
ference among  copies,  so  that  all  those  of  the  Gospel  of  Matthew 
do  not  agree  together,  and  so  also  as  it  regards  the  other  Gospels, 
it  might  well  seem  irreverent  in  any  one  to  suspect  that  the  pre- 
cept has  been  inserted  here  without  its  having  been  mentioned  by 
the  Saviour.  But  it  is  evident  that  there  exists  much  difference 
among  copies,  partly  from  the  carelessness  of  some  transcribers, 
partly  from  the  rashness  of  others  in  altering  improperly  what  they 
find  written,  and  partly  from  those  revisers  who  add  or  strike  out 
according  to  their  own  judgment." 

He  immediately  subjoins,  that  he  had  provided  a  remedy  for 
such  errors  in  the  copies  of  the  Septuagint,  by  giving  a  new 
critical  edition  of  it. 

In  this  passage,  nothing  is  referred  to  but  well-known,  com- 
mon causes  of  error  in  the  transcription  of  manuscripts. 
We  learn  from  it,  that  transcribers  were  sometimes  careless ; 
that  they  sometimes  improperly  altered  from  conjecture  a 
reading  in  the  copy  before  them,  which  they  fancied  to  be 
erroneous  ;  and  that  those  whose  business  it  was  to  revise 
manuscripts  after  transcription,  for  the  purpose  of  correcting 
errors,  did  sometimes,  in  the  want  of  proper  critical  appa- 
ratus, rely  too  much  upon  their  mere  judgment  concerning 
what  was  i)robably  the  true  text.  These  are  all  propositions 
which  we  might  credit  without  the  testimony  of  Origen.  His 
language  in  speaking  of  the  difference  among  the  manuscripts 
of  the  Gospels,  though  he  had  a  particular  purpose  in  repre- 
senting it  as  considerable,  is  much  less  strong  than  what  has 
been  used  by  some  modern  critics,  and  among  them  by  Gries- 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  45 

bach  himself,  in  speaking  of  the  disagreement  among  our 
present  copies.  The  expressions  of  the  latter,  as  one  may 
easily  satisfy  himself,  are  very  loose  and  exaggerated.*  If 
they  had  been  found  in  Origen,  it  might  have  been  diflicuU  to 
believe  that  the  agreement  among  the  copies  of  the  Gospels 
existing  in  his  time  was  really  as  great  as  we  know  it  to 
be  among  those  extant  at  the  present  day.  His  language, 
Buch  as  it  is,  affords  no  ground  for  a  contrary  supposition. 

But  the  passage  before  us  deserves  further  attention  in 
several  points  of  view.  In  the  first  place,  it  goes  to  prove, 
as  has  been  remarked,  the  reverence  with  which  the  Gospels 
were  regarded.  In  the  next  place,  it  shows  the  importance 
which  the  most  eminent  Christian  writer  of  his  age  attached 
to  the  proposal  of  omitting  a  few  words  in  the  text  of  St. 


*  Griesbach,  for  instance,  says  (in  the  Prolegomena  to  his  New  Testament, 
sect,  iii.),  that  what  he  calls  the  Alexandrine  text  of  the  New  Testament  dif- 
fers from  what  he  calls  the  Western  text,  "  in  its  Avhole  conformation  and 
entire  coloring,"  toto  sua  Jtabltu  universoque  colore.  According  to  him,  if  we 
tiike  the  quotations  of  Origen  and  Clement,  certain  manuscripts,  and  certain 
other  authorities,  all  of  Avhich  he  classes  together  as  Alexandrine,  and  settle 
the  text  of  the  New  Testament  from  them  al^ne,  this  text  will  differ  in  its 
whole  aspect  from  that  which  may  be  formed  by  a  similar  process  from  the 
quotations  of  Tertullian  and  Cyprian,  and  the  other  authorities  which,  ac- 
cording to  him,  belong  to  the  Western  class.  All  that  seems  necessary  to 
enable  one  acquainted  with  the  subject  to  perceive  the  extravagance  of 
Griesbach's  language,  is  to  have  his  attention  directed  to  it.  It  is  incon- 
sistent with  his  own  statements  elsewhere,  and  with  indisputable  facts. 

The  assertion  of  Griesbach  above  quoted  is  made  by  him  in  a  merely  criti- 
cal essay,  in  which  any  thing  like  exaggeration  was  least  to  be  expected.  If 
an  assertion  of  a  similar  kind  had  been  found  in  any  work,  however  declama- 
tory, of  a*  writer  of  the  first  three  centuries,  the  circumstance  might  have 
seemed  embarrassing,  as  respects  the  present  argument.  We  should,  how- 
ever, have  been  equally  justified  in  regarding  such  language  as  highly 
extravagant  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other.  I  advert  to  these  facts  in  order  to 
illustrate  a  principle  of  considerable  importance,  that  single  passages  from  a 
particular  writer  are  often  of  very  little  weight  or  importance,  when  opposed 
to  a  conclusion  resting  upon  strong  probabilities.  Many  writers,  who  have 
no  intention  of  deceiving,  are  far  from  being  accurate  and  attentive  in  esti- 
mating the  meaning  and  force  of  their  words. 


46  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

Matthew.  But  this  renders  incredible  the  supposition,  that 
it  had  been  common  for  the  possessors  and  transcribers  of 
manuscripts  to  make  intentional  changes  in  the  text  of  the 
Gospels.  The  passage  shows  the  prevalence  of  a  sentiment 
wholly  inconsistent  with  the  disposition  to  make  such  changes ; 
and  the  prevalence  of  a  belief  in  the  genuineness  of  their  text, 
which  could  not  have  existed  if  such  changes  had  been  com- 
mon. This  sentiment  and  belief  are  further  exhibited  in 
another  passage  of  Origen,  where,  comparing  the  prediction 
of  our  Saviour,  The  Son  of  man  shall  he  three  days  and  three 
nights  in  the  earth,  with  his  declaration  to  the  penitent  rob- 
ber. This  night  thou  shalt  be  with  me  in  paradise,  he  says, 
that  "  some  have  been  so  troubled  with  the  seeming  incon- 
sistency as  to  venture  to  suspect  the  latter  words  of  being  an 
interpolation."*  But,  further,  the  passage  before  us  shows, 
that  Origen  did  not  regard  the  Gospels  as  having  been  ex- 
posed to  any  other  causes  of  error  than  those  common  in  the 
transcription  of  manuscripts ;  such,  for  instance,  as  had  oper- 
ated, and  without  doubt  much  more  extensively,  in  the  copies 
of  the  Septuagint.  And,  lastly,  the  language  of  this  passage 
affords  proof,  if  such  proof  be  needed,  that  Origen  had  no 
disposition  to  keep  out  of  view,  or  to  extenuate,  the  differ- 
ences among  the  copies  of  the  Gospels  extant  in  his  time. 
We  may  therefore  be  satisfied,  that  none  of  more  importance 
existed  than  what  we  find  noticed  by  him. 

It  appears,  then,  that  Origen  thought  the  diversities  of 
manuscripts  a  subject  deserving  particular  attention ;  that 
he  was  rather  disposed  to  complain  of  the  carelessness  and 
rashness  of  transcribers  and  revisers,  and  to  exaggerate  the 
discrepancies  which  had  been  thus  produced ;  and  yet  that  he 
never  mentions  the  existence  of  any  more  important  differ- 
ences among  the  copies  of  the  Gospels  extant  in  his  time, 
than  such  various  readings  as  are  found  in  our  present  manu- 

*  Comment,  in  Joan.,  tom.  xxxii.  §  19 ;  0pp.  iv.  455. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  47 

scripts.  He  was  ignorant,  therefore,  of  any  such  differences 
as  are  supposed  in  the  hypothesis  under  consideration.  But, 
if  unknown  to  him,  they  were  unknown  to  other  Christians 
at  the  time  when  Origen  lived  ;  that  is,  during  the  first  half 
of  the  third  century.  They,  therefore,  did  not  exist  in 
the  manuscripts  of  this  period.  But  we,  at  the  present 
day,  have  manuscripts  of  the  Gospels  written  at  least  twelve 
hundred  years  since :  and,  during  the  first  half  of  the  third 
century,  a  large  portion  of  all  the  copies  which  had  ever  been 
made  was  probably  in  existence  ;  some  written  in  the  earliest 
times,  and  others  in  succession  during  the  interval.  The 
oldest  manuscripts  would  be  sought  for  by  Origen,  and  other 
critics  contemporary  with  him ;  as  they  have  been  by  critics 
since  his  time.  The  manuscripts  of  a  later  date  extant  in  his 
age  were  transcripts  of  others  more  ancient,  and  must  have 
perpetuated  their  discrepancies.  But  no  important  discrep- 
ancies were  known  to  Origen ;  they  were  not  found  in  earlier 
or  later  copies,  extant  in  his  age ;  and  it  is  but  little  more 
than  stating  the  same  thing  in  other  words,  to  say  that  they 
never  had  existed. 

IV.  We  may  reason  in  a  similar  manner  from  all  the 
notices  in  ancient  writers  relating  to  the  text  of  the  Gospels. 
These  notices  show  that  no  greater  difference  existed  among 
the  manuscripts  of  the  Gospels  in  their  day  than  exists  at 
present.  We  may  even  draw  a  strong  argument  from  their 
silence.  If  there  had  been  narratives  or  sayings  in  some 
copies  of  the  Gospels,  not  found  in  the  generality,  we  should 
have  information  of  it  in  their  works.  But,  on  the  contrary, 
nothing  can  be  alleged  from  their  writings  to  prove  any 
greater  difference  among  the  copies  extant  in  their  time 
than  what  is  found  among  those  which  we  now  possess. 
The  silence  of  the  fathers  proves  that  there  was  a  similar 
agreement. 


48  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

V.  When  we  examine  the  Gospels  themselves,  there  is 
nothing  which  discovers  marks  of  their  having  been  subjected 
to  such  a  process  of  interpolation  as  has  been  imagined.  On 
the  contrary,  there  is  evidence  which  seems  decisive  that  each 
is  the  work  of  an  individual,  and  has  been  preserved  as  it 
was  written  by  him.  The  dialect,  the  style,  and  the  modes 
of  narration  in  the  Gospels,  generally  have  a  very  marked 
and  peculiar  character.  Each  Gospel,  also,  is  distinguished 
from  the  others  by  individual  peculiarities  in  the  use  of  lan- 
guage, and  other  characteristics  exclusively  its  own.  Any 
one  familiar  with  the  originals  perceives,  for  instance,  that 
Mark  is  a  writer  less  acquainted  with  the  Greek  language 
than  Luke,  and  having  less  command  of  proper  expression. 
His  style  is,  in  consequence,  more  affected  by  the  idiom  of 
the  Hebrew,  more  harsh,  more  unformed,  more  barbarous, 
in  the  technical  sense  of  that  word.  If  you  were  to  transfer 
into  Luke's  Gospel  a  chapter  from  that  of  Mark,  every  critic 
would  at  once  perceive  its  dissimilitude  to  the  general  style 
of  the  former.  The  difference  would  be  still  more  remarka- 
ble, if  you  were  to  insert  a  portion  from  Mark  in  John's 
Gospel.  But  the  very  distinctive  character  of  the  style  of 
the  Gospels  generally,  and  the  peculiar  character  of  each 
Gospel,  are  irreconcilable  with  the  notion,  that  they  have 
been  brought  to  their  present  state  by  additions  and  altera- 
tions of  successive  copiers.  A  diversity  of  hands  would  have 
produced  in  each  Gospel  a  diversity  of  style  and  character. 
Instead  of  the  uniformity  that  now  appears,  the  modes  of 
conception  and  expression  would  have  been  inconsistent  and 
vacillating.  AVe  are  able  to  give  a  remarkable  exemplifica- 
tion and  proof  of  this  fact.  With  the  exception  of  a  few 
short  passages  which  have  been  transferred  from  one  Gospel 
to  another,  of  the  doxology  at  the  end  of  our  Lord's  Prayer 
in  Matthew,  and  of  the  story  of  the  woman  taken  in  adultery, 
as  inserted  in  a  very  few  modern  manuscripts  at  the  end  of 
the  twenty -first  chapter  of  Luke,  there  have  been  found  but 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE   GOSPELS.  49 

three  undisputed  interpolations  of  any  considerable  length 
among  all  the  Greek  manuscripts  of  the  Gospels ;  and  every- 
one of  the  three  betrays  itself  to  be  spurious  by  its  internal 
character,  —  by  a  style  of  thought  and  language  clearly  dif- 
ferent from  that  which  characterizes  the  Gospel  in  which  it 
has  been  introduced.  This  is  not  a  matter  of  fancy.  It  is 
a  point  which  no  critic  will  dispute.  If,  then,  our  present 
Gospels  had  been  the  result  of  successive  additions,  made  by 
different  hands  to  a  common  basis,  there  would  have  been 
a  marked  diversity  of  style  in  different  portions  of  the  same 
Gospel ;  so  that  these  works  would  have  been  very  unlike 
what  they  now  are.  We  should  have  perceived  clear  traces 
of  different  writers,  having  greater  or  less  command  of  ex- 
pression, accustomed  to  a  different  use  of  language,  and 
viewing  the  history  of  Christ  under  different  aspects  and 
with  different  feelings. 

It  is  true,  that  in  the  passage  commencing  with  the  fifth 
verse  of  the  first  chapter  of  St.  Luke's  Gospel,  and  extend- 
ing to  the  end  of  the  second  chapter,  there  is  an  observable 
dissimilarity  between  the  language  and  that  of  the  remainder 
of  his  Gospel ;  so  that  it  forms  an  exception  to  the  general 
remarks  which  have  just  been  made.  This  circumstance  has 
given  occasion  for  supposing  it  to  be  an  interpolation.  But 
the  true  account  seems  to  be,  that  this  passage  was  a  short 
narrative,  in  existence  before  the  work  of  the  evangelist, 
which  he  incorporated  with  his  Gospel ;  that,  if  he  found  it 
extant  in  Greek,  he  did  not  essentially  modify  the  style  ;  and, 
if  in  Hebrew,  that  his  translation  was  literal,  and  affected 
throughout  by  the  idiom  of  the  original.  The  events  recorded 
in  this  portion  of  his  Gospel  having  taken  place,  as  we 
believe,  about  sixty  years  before  he  wrote,  the  supposition  is 
in  itself  probable ;  and  it  explains  the  character  of  this  par- 
ticular passage,  without  affecting  the  force  of  the  preceding 
reasoning.  On  the  contrary,  this  is  strengthened  by  the  cir- 
cumstance, that,  where  an  exception  occurs,  we  can  assign 

4 


60  EVIDENCES    OF   THE 

a  special  and  probable  cause  for  it.  It  may  be  observed, 
further,  that  our  being  able  to  perceive  so  much  difference 
between  the  language  of  this  portion  of  St.  Luke's  Gospel 
and  that  of  the  remainder,  shows  the  general  uniformity  and 
marked  character  of  St.  Luke's  style. 

Upon  the  hypothesis  under  consideration,  it  is  as  probable 
that  the  stories  collected  by  various  transcribers  would  have 
been  add(3d  to  St.  John's  Gospel,  as  to  any  one  of  the  other 
Gospels.  By  comparing  his  Gospel  with  the  other  three,  we 
perceive  that  there  were  many  narratives  concerning  Christ 
in  existence,  which  are  not  contained  in  the  former,  and 
which  would  have  afforded  an  abundant  harvest  for  an 
interpolator.  But  it  is  obvious  that  no  such  additions  have 
been  made  to  St.  John's  Gospel  as  are  supposed  to  have 
been  commonly  made  to  the  histories  of  Christ.  The  modes 
of  thinking,  and  the  style,  are  uniform  throughout,  and 
very  marked  and  distinguishable.  It  may  be  separated  into 
a  few  long  divisions,  each  of  which  is  closely  connected 
within  itself;  and  it  contains  scarcely  any  of  those  short 
narratives  in  the  style  of  the  other  Gospels,  among  which  we 
must  look  for  the  additions  which  transcribers  are  supposed 
to  have  made  to  the  latter.  Such  being  the  facts,  it  is  impos- 
sible to  believe  that  this  Gospel  has  ever  been  essentially 
corrupted  by  additions  from  its  copiers.  But  if  this  Gospel, 
equally  exposed  to  corruption  with  any  one  of  the  other 
three,  has  not  thus  suffered  from  transcribers,  we  may  infer 
that  the  same  is  true  of  the  other  three  Gospels. 

VI.  There  is  also  another  ground,  on  which  we  infer,  from 
the  uniformity  of  style  in  the  several  Gospels,  and  the  pecu- 
liar character  of  this  style,  that  they  have  not  been  inter- 
polated. The  Gospels  are  written  in  Hellenistic  Greek,  a 
dialect  used  by  Jews  imperfectly  acquainted  with  the  Greek 
language,  and  intimately  affected,  in  consequence,  by  the 
influence  of  the  Hebrew.     A  native  Greek  could  not  have 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  51 

written  in  this  dialect,  if  he  would,  without  having  made  it 
a  particular  study.  Now,  it  is  through  the  Gentile  branch 
of  the  early  converts  that  Christianity  and  the  Gospels  have 
been  transmitted  to  us.  But  we  know  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment, that,  in  the  very  beginning,  there  were  strong  tenden 
cies  to  schism  between  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  converts. 
After  the  death  of  the  apostles,  and  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem, the  former,  generally  speaking,  separated  themselves 
more  and  more  from  the  latter ;  they  remained  strongly 
attached  to  their  law ;  they  were  reputed  heretics  ;  they 
seem  to  have  made  little  or  no  use  of  the  books  which  con- 
stitute the  New  Testament,  with  the  exception  of  the  Gospel 
of  Matthew ;  and  at  last,  after  four  or  five  centuries,  they 
disappear  from  our  view.  It  woidd  be  a  very  improbable 
supposition,  that  any  considerable  number  of  the  copies  of 
the  Gospels  used  by  Gentile  Christians  were  made  by  Jewish 
transcribers,  or  interpolated  by  Jews.  It  is  not  to  such 
copies  that  we  can  trace  back  the  lineage  of  our  own.  Only 
a  portion  of  the  Jews  were  acquainted  with  the  Greek  lan- 
guage as  written ;  and  very  few,  it  is  probable,  exercised  the 
trade  of  transcribers  in  that  language.  Origen,  in  attempting 
to  explain  the  cause  of  a  supposed  error,  which  he  believed  to 
have  arisen  from  ignorance  of  the  Hebrew,  speaks  of  the 
Gospels  as  having  been  continually  transcribed  by  Greeks 
unacquainted  with  that  language.*  But  the  Gospels  are 
throughout  written  in  Hellenistic  Greek.  Whatever  inter- 
polations may  be  fancied  to  exist,  they  do  not  discover  them- 
selves by  being  written  in  pure  and  common  Greek.  These 
fancied  interpolations,  however,  are  sujiposed  to  have  been 
made  by  a  series  of  transcribers.  But  these  transcribers,  as 
we  have  seen,  must  generally  have  been  Gentiles ;  and 
Gentiles  would  hardly  have  interpolated  in  Hebrew-Greek, 
or,   to   say   the   least,   would   hardly    have    interpolated    in 

*  Comment,  in  Matt.,  torn.  xvi.  §  19;  0pp.  iii.  748. 


52  EVIDENCES  OF   THE 

Hebrew-Greek  so  uniformly  that  we  should  not  be  able  to 
trace  any  considerable  departure  from  this  dialect. 

VII.  In  those  cases  in  which  we  have  good  reason  to  sus- 
pect an  ancient  writing  of  being  spurious  altogether,  or  of 
having  received  spitrious  additions,  the  fact  is  almost  always 
betrayed  by  something  in  the  character  of  the  writing  itself. 
Spurious  works,  and  interpolations  in  genuine  works,  are  dis- 
covered, for  instance,  by  something  not  congruous  to  the  char- 
acter of  the  pretended  author ;  by  a  style  different  from  that 
of  his  genuine  writings  ;  by  the  expression  of  opinions  and 
feelings  which  it  is  improbable  that  he  entertained  ;  by  discov- 
ering an  ignorance  of  facts  with  which  he  must  have  been 
acquainted ;  by  a  use  of  language,  and  the  introduction  of 
modes  of  conception,  not  known  at  the  period  to  which  they 
are  assigned ;  by  an  implied  reference  to  opinions,  events,  or 
even  books,  of  a  later  age ;  or  by  some  bearing  and  purpose 
not  consistent  with  the  time  when  they  are  pretended  to  have 
been  written.  Traces  of  the  times  when  they  were  really 
composed  are  almost  always  apparent.  This  must  have  been 
the  case  with  the  Gospels,  if  they  had  been  conformed,  as  has 
been  imagined,  to  the  traditions  and  doctrines  of  the  Church  in 
the  second  century.  But,  putting  this  notion  out  of  view,  we 
should  have  perceived  distinct  traces  of  a  later  age  than  the 
period  assigned  for  their  composition,  if  they  had  been  sub- 
jected to  alterations  and  additions  from  different  editors  and 
transcribers,  with  different  views  and  feelings,  and  more  or 
less  interested  and  excited  about  the  opinions  and  controver- 
sies which  had  sprung  up  in  their  own  times.  But  no  traces 
of  a  later  age  than  that  which  we  assign  for  their  composition 
appear  in  the  Gospels.  He  who  fairly  examines  the  scanty 
list  of  passages  which  have  been  produced,  as  giving  some 
countenance  to  an  opposite  opinion,  ma}'-  fully  satisfy  himself 
of  the  correctness  of  this  assertion.  I  will  quote,  in  proof  of 
it,  a  passage  from  Eichhoru,  which  I  am  unable  to  reconcile 


GENUINENESS    OF   THE   GOSPELS.  53 

with  the  statements  before  adduced  from  him,  and  with  other 
parts  of  his  writings  ;  but  which,  evidently,  derives  additional 
weight  from  this  inconsistency.  In  a  section  "  on  the  credi- 
bility "  of  the  Gospels,  after  mentioning  by  name  Matthew, 
Mark,  and  Luke,  as  the  authors  of  the  first  three,  he  thus 
proceeds : — 

"Every  thing  in  their  narratives  corresponds  to  the  age  in 
which  they  lived  and  wrote,  and  to  the  circumstances  in  which  we 
must  believe  them  to  have  been  placed,  —  an  unanswerable  proof 
of  their  credibility.  No  one  has  yet  appeared,  who,  in  this  re- 
spect, has  convicted  them  of  want  of  truth  ;  and,  until  this  be  done 
by  satisfactory  evidence,  their  credibility  may  be  confidently  main- 
tained." * 

If,  then,  the  Gospels  do  not  bear  the  impression  of  later 
times,  but  correspond  in  their  character  to  the  age  in  which 
we  believe  them  to  have  been  written,  this  must  be  regarded 
as  a  strong  proof  that  they  are  genuine,  uncorrupted  works  of 
that  age. 

Vni.  The  character  and  actions  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  exhib- 
ited in  the  Gospels,  are  peculiar  and  extraordinary  beyond  all 
example.  They  distinguish  him,  in  a  most  remarkable  man- 
ner, from  all  other  men.  They  display  the  highest  moral 
sublimity.  We  perceive,  throughout,  an  ultimate  purpose 
of  the  most  extensive  benevolence.  But  this  character  of 
Christ,  which  appears  in  the  Gospels,  is  exhibited  with  per- 
fect consistency.  Whatever  he  is  represented  as  saying  or 
doing  corresponds  to  the  fact  or  the  conception,  —  call  it 
which  we  will,  —  that  he  was  a  teacher  sent  from  God,  indued 
with  the  highest  powers,  and  intrusted  with  the  most  impor- 
tant office  ever  exercised  upon  earth.  The  different  parts  of 
each  Gospel  harmonize  together.  Now,  let  any  one  consider 
how  unlikely  it  is  that  we  should  have  found  this  consistency 

*  Einleitung  in  d.  N.  T.,  i.  639. 


54  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

in  the  representation  of  Christ,  if  the  Gospels  had  been,  in 
great  part,  the  work  of  inconsiderate  or  presumptuous  copiers  ; 
or  if  they  had  consisted,  in  great  part,  of  a  collection  of  tra- 
ditionary stories ;  and  especially  if  these  stories  had  been,  as 
some  have  imagined,  either  fabulous  accounts  of  miracles,  or 
narratives  having  a  foundation  in  truth,  but  corresponding  so 
little  to  the  real  fact  as  to  have  assumed  a  miraculous  charac- 
ter, which  there  was  nothing  in  the  fact  itself  to  justify.  It 
is  incredible,  that,  under  such  circumstances,  there  should  be 
the  consistency  which  now  appears  in  the  Gospels.  On  the 
contrary,  we  might  expect  to  find  in  them  stories  of  the  same 
kind  with  those  which  were  found,  or  are  still  found,  in  cer- 
tain writings  that  have  been  called  apocryphal  gospels, — 
stories  which  betray  their  falsehood  at  first  view  by  their 
incongruity  with  the  character  and  actions  of  our  Saviour,  as 
displayed  by  the  evangelists.  We  shall  have  occasion  to 
notice  some  of  them  more  particularly  hereafter.  Every  one 
acquainted  with  the  stories  referred  to  must  perceive  and 
acknowledixe  their  strikins;  dissimilitude  to  the  narratives  of 
the  Gospels.  A  dissimilitude  of  the  same  kind  would  have 
existed  between  different  parts  of  the  Gospels,  if  they  had 
grown,  as  has  been  imagined,  to  their  present  form  by  a  grad- 
ual contribution  of  traditionary  tales.  On  the  contrary,  their 
consistency  in  the  representation  of  our  Saviour  is  one 
among  the  many  proofs  that  they  have  been  preserved  essen- 
tially as  they  were  first  written. 

We  have  seen,  then,  in  the  present  chapter,  that  there  is  no 
reason  to  doubt  that  the  Christians  of  the  first  two  centuries 
had  the  highest  reverence  for  their  sacred  books ;  and  that, 
with  this  sentiment,  they  could  neither  have  made  nor  have 
suffered  alterations  in  the  Gospels  ;  that  the  manner  in  which 
the  Christian  fathers  speak  of  the  corruptions  with  which 
they  charged  some  of  the  heretics  implies,  from  the  nature  of 
the  case,  that  they  knew  of  no  similar  corruptions  in  their 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  55 

own  copies  of  the  Gospels  ;  that,  from  the  notice  which 
Origen  takes  of  tlie  various  readings  found  by  him  in  his 
manuscripts  of  the  Gospels,  we  may  conclude,  that  no  con- 
siderable diversity  among  the  manuscripts  of  the  Gospels  had 
ever  existed ;  that  we  may  infer  the  same  from  all  the  other 
notices  respecting  the  text  of  the  Gospels  in  the  writings  of 
the  fiithers,  and  from  the  absence  of  any  thing  in  their  Avorks 
which  might  show  that  their  copies  differed  more  from  each 
other  than  those  now  extant ;  that  the  peculiar  style  of  the 
Gospels  generally,  and  the  uniform  style  of  each  Gospel, 
afford  proof  that  each  is  essentially  the  work  of  one  author, 
which  has  been  preserved  unaltered  ;  that  this  argument  be- 
comes more  striking  when  we  consider  that  far  the  greater 
number  of  the  copies  of  the  Gospels,  during  the  first  two 
centuries,  were  made  by  Greek  transcribers,  who,  if  they  had 
interpolated,  would  have  interpolated  in  common  Greek ;  that 
it  is  from  copies  made  by  them  that  our  own  are  divided,  but 
that  the  Gospels,  as  we  possess  them,  are  written  throughout 
in  that  dialect  of  the  Greek  which  was  used  only  by  Jews ; 
that  spurious  w^orks,  or  spurious  additions  to  genuine  works, 
may  commonly  be  discovered  by  some  incongruity  with  the 
character  or  the  circumstances  of  the  pretended  author,  or 
with  the  age  to  which  they  are  assigned,  but  that  no  such 
incongruity  appears  in  the  Gospels  as  may  throw  any  doubt 
upon  their  general  character;  and,  lastly,  that  the  consist- 
ency preserved  throughout  each  of  the  Gospels  in  all  that 
relates  to  the  actions,  discourses,  and  most  extraordinary  char- 
acter of  Christ,  shows  that  each  is  a  work  which  remains  the 
same  essentially  as  it  was  originally  written,  uncorrupted  by 
subsequent  alterations  or  additions. 


It  has,  indeed,  been  already  remarked,  that  the  Gospel  of 
St.  Matthew  was  probably  written  in  Hebrew ;  and  that  we 


56  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

possess  only  a  Greek  translatiou.  So  far,  therefore,  as  re- 
gards  this  Gospel,  a  part  of  the  arguments  adduced,  especially 
those  in  the  first  chapter,  apply  directly  only  to  prove  the 
uncorrupt  preservation  of  the  Greek  copy.  But  I  am  not 
aware  of  any  consideration  that  may  lead  us  to  suspect,  that 
the  Greek  is  not  a  faithful  rendering  from  the  Hebrew  copy 
or  copies  used  by  the  translator,  or  that  the  exemplar  he 
followed  did  not  essentially  correspond  with  the  original.  On 
the  contrary,  there  seems  no  reasonable  ground  for  doubt 
respecting  either  proposition. 

It  is  true,  that  the  three  additions  before  suggested*  may 
have  been  made  to  the  Hebrew  text  used  by  the  translator. 
The  liability  to  those  accidents  that  attend  the,  transcription 
of  books  was  probably  increased,  in  the  case  of  Matthew's 
Gospel,  by  a  more  than  ordinary  want  of  skill  and  judgment 
in  some  of  its  Hebrew  copyists ;  for  the  transcription  of 
books  cannot  be  supposed  to  have  been  an  art  much  practised 
among  the  native  Jews  of  Palestine.  But  the  causes  of  error 
in  the  text  used  by  Matthew's  translator  could  have  operated 
but  a  short  time,  since  we  cannot  suppose  the  interval  between 
the  composition  and  translation  of  the  Gospel  to  have  been 
more  than  about  fifty  years. 

In  regard  to  the  hypothesis  we  have  been  considering,  of 
licentious  and  intentional  additions  by  transcribers,  as  we  have 
seen  that  there  is  no  ground  for  it  as  regards  the  Greek  Gos- 
pels, so  we  may  infer  that  the  Hebrew  Gospel  of  Matthew 
did  not  thus  suffer  during  the  fifty  years  after  its  first  appear- 
ance. The  supposition  that  it  did  so,  being  altogether  im- 
probable in  itself,  would  require  strong,  direct  proof  to  justify 
us  in  admitting  it ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  there  is  nothing  to 
set  aside  the  conclusion,  founded  on  the  general  analogy  of 
other  writings,  that  this  Gospel  was  the  work  of  an  individual 


See  before,  pp.  16, 17. 


GENUINENESS  OP  THE  GOSPELS.  57 

author,  and  was,  during  the  short  interval  before  its  transla- 
tion, preserved  essentially  as  written  by  him. 

Speaking  of  the  time  when  the  Hebrew  original  alone  was 
extant,  Papias  says,  that  "every  one  translated  it  as  he 
could ; "  meaning,  I  conceive,  that  he  translated  it  to  himself 
in  reading  it.  His  words,  it  is  evident,  directly  imply  that  it 
was  in  the  hands  of  readers  whose  vernacular  lauijuase  was 
the  Greek.  Many  of  the  Jewish  converts,  without  doubt, 
were  capable  of  understanding  it  both  m  the  Hebrew  and  the 
Greek.  There  were,  therefore,  contemporary  judges  of  the  cor- 
respondence of  the  translation  with  the  original,  by  whom  its 
correspondence  was  not  questioned;  for,  had  it  been,  we  should 
have  known  the  fact.  Nor  is  an  expression  of  doubt  con- 
cerning its  authenticity  to  be  found  in  any  subsequent  age : 
on  the  other  hand,  controvertists,  the  most  opposed  to  each 
other,  agreed  in  using  the  Greek  translation  as  a  common 
authority. 


But  the  whole  supposition  of  licentious  alterations  in  the 
Gospels  from  the  text  of  their  original  authors  must  rest  on 
the  belief  that  there  was  a  general  indifference  among  the 
early  Christians  about  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of 
the  books  from  which  they  derived  a  knowledge  of  their 
religion.  Those  writings  they  might  have  preserved  uncor- 
rupted,  if  they  would.  But  such,  it  must  be  presumed,  was 
their  negligence  and  folly,  that  they  cared  not  whether  the 
contents  of  the  Gospels  were  true  or  false ;  whether  they 
proceeded  from  apostles  and  evangelists,  or  from  unknown 
and  anonymous  individuals.  Christians,  at  the  time  of  which 
we  speak,  were  submitting  to  severe  privations,  and  exposing 
themselves  to  great  sufferings,  for  their  religion.  They  were 
supported  by  a  conviction  of  the  infinite  value  of  the  truths 
which  it  taught,  —  those  truths,  the  knowledge  of  which  was 
preserved,  as  they  believed,  in  the  writings  of  its  first  disciples. 


68         GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS. 

But,  if  we  suppose  the  text  of  any  one  of  the  Gospels  to 
have  suffered  essential  alteration,  we  must  suppose  that 
Christians  were  indifferent  about  the  contents  of  those  books 
which  they  regarded  as  the  authentic  records  of  their  faith, 
their  duties,  their  consolations,  and  their  hopes.  It  seems, 
therefore,  not  too  much  to  say  of  the  hypothesis  of  the  essen- 
tial corruption  of  the  Gospels,  that  it  is  irreconcilable  with 
any  just  conception  of  the  circumstances  and  feelings  of  the 
early  Christians,  and  of  the  moral  nature  of  man. 


CHAPTER    III. 

OBJECTIONS      CONSIDERED. 

Upon  what  arguments,  then,  rests  the  supposition  that  essen- 
tial alterations  have  been  made  in  the  Gospels  since  their 
original  composition  ?  These  arguments,  whatever  they  are, 
if  of  any  force,  must  assume  the  character  of  objections  and 
difficulties,  when  viewed  in  relation  to  the  proposition,  the 
truth  of  which  has  been  maintained.  But,  strongly  as  the  cor- 
ruption of  the  Gospels  has  been  asserted,  I  am  unacquainted 
with  any  formal  statement  of  arguments  in  its  proof. 

Those  by  whom  it  has  been  principally  maintained  belong 
to  that  large  class  of  German  critics  who  reject  the  belief  of 
any  thing  properly  miraculous  in  the  history  of  Christ.  But 
the  difficulty  of  reconciling  this  disbelief  of  the  miracles  with 
the  admission  of  the  truth  of  facts  concerning  him  not  miracu- 
lous is  greatly  increased,  if  the  Gospels  be  acknowledged  as 
the  uncorrupted  works  of  those  who  were  witnesses  of  what 
they  relate,  or  who  derived  their  information  immediately 
from  such  witnesses.  On  the  other  hand,  in  proportion  as 
suspicion  is  cast  upon  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of 
those  writings,  the  history  of  Christ  becomes  doubtful  and 
obscure.  An  opening  is  made  for  theories  concerning  his  life, 
character,  and  works,  and  the  origin  of  his  religion.  Any 
account  of  our  Saviour,  upon  the  supposition  that  he  was  not 
a  teacher  from  God  endued  with  miraculous  powers,  must  be 
almost  wholly  conjectural.     But  such  a  conjectural  account 


60  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

will  appear  to  less  disadvantage,  if  placed  in  competition  with 
narratives  of  uncertain  origin,  than  if  brought  into  direct 
opposition  to  the  authority  of  original  witnesses. 

The  theory  of  the  corruption  of  the  Gospels  has  been  con-- 
nected  with  an  hypothesis  concerning  the  manner  in  which 
the  first  three  Gospels  were  formed ;  from  which,  as  I  con- 
ceive, it  has  been  regarded  as  deriving  its  main  support.  This 
hypothesis  is  intended  to  account  for  the  remarkable  phenom- 
ena in  the  agreement  and  disao;reement  of  the  first  three  Gos- 
pels  with  each  other.  It  has  been  explained  and  defended, 
with  much  clearness  and  ability,  by  Bishop  Marsh.*  It  sup- 
poses the  existence  of  an  original  document,  a  brief  narrative 
of  the  public  life  of  Christ,  the  Original  Gospel  of  Eichhorn. 
This  document,  it  is  believed,  was  in  the  hands  of  several 
persons,  who  added  to  it  different  narratives,  according  to 
their  respective  information ;  so  that  copies  of  it  were  in 
existence  with  different  additions.  Each  of  the  first  three 
evangelists  is  thought  to  have  used  a  different  copy  as  the 
basis  of  his  Gospel.  It  is  then  only  to  suppose,  that  the  same 
custom  of  making  additions,  which  was  common  in  regard  to 
the  original  document  just  mentioned,  prevailed  afterwards 
in  regard  to  the  Gospels,  and  we  have  the  very  supposition 
against  which  we  have  been  contending. 

To  this  the  answer  is,  that  the  hypothesis,  in  any  form  in 
which  it  may  be  presented,  can,  at  most,  be  regarded  only  as 
creating  a  presumption  that  the  Gospels  have  been  corrupted ; 
and  this  presumption  would  be  of  no  force  in  opposition  to 
the  facts  stated  in  the  two  preceding  chapters.  It  would  only 
bring  suspicion  upon  the  hypothesis  itself;  since  this  must  be 


*  In  his  "  Dissertation  on  the  Origin  and  Composition  of  the  Three  First 
Canonical  Gospels,"  and  his  tracts  in  the  controversy  occasioned  by  an  anon^-- 
mous  publication  (of  which  Bishop  Randolph  was  the  author)  entitled, 
"Remarks  on  Michaelis's  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament;  bv  Way  of 
Caution  to  Students  in  Divinity." 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  61 

conformed  to  all  the  facts  wliicli  have  a  bearing  upon  it.  The 
latter  must  not  be  made  to  bend  to  the  former.  With  such  a 
view  of  the  subject,  it  would  be  improper,  in  this  place,  to 
enter  into  a  particular  examination  of  the  theory  in  question. 
Such  an  examination,  however,  may  be  found  in  one  of  the 
additional  notes  to  this  volume.*  If  the  reasoning  there 
urged  be  correct,  it  will  appear  that  the  hypothesis  of  an 
original  document  gradually  receiving  additions  from  different 
hands,  and  used  in  different  forms  by  the  first  three  evange- 
lists, involves  suppositions  which  cannot  be  admitted ;  that  it 
is  unnecessary  in  order  to  account  for  the  agreement  of  the 
Gospels  with  each  other ;  and  that  it  is  neither  implied,  nor 
rendered  probable,  by  the  phenomena  to  be  explained,  but 
that,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  inconsistent  with  those  phenomena. 
It  may  be  recollected,  that  the  Original  Gospel  is  regarded 
by  Eichhorn,  not  only  as  the  common  source  of  our  first  three 
Gospels,  but  likewise  of  certain  apocryphal  gospels,  which 
were  in  use  before  them.f  These,  according  to  him,  were 
the  following :  The  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews ;  the  Gospel  of 
Marcion ;  the  Memoirs  by  the  Apostles,  used  by  Justin  Mar- 
tyr; the  gospel  adopted  by  Cerinthus  and  his  sect;  gospels 
used  by  Tatian  in  composing  his  Diatessaron  ;  and  those  used 
by  the  apostolic  fathers.  These  gospels,  and  our  first  three 
Gospels,  are  all  supposed  to  have  been  so  intimately  con- 
nected, as  to  prove  their  derivation  from  a  common  original ; 
and  the  knowledge  which  we  possess  respecting  their  con- 
tents is  regarded  as  illustrating  the  process  of  change  and 
growth  which  they  had  all  gone  through.  I  shall,  in  the 
course  of  this  work,  remark,  under  the  proper  heads,  upon 
the  gospels  mentioned  by  Eichhorn,  and  endeavor  to  show, 
that  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews  was  probably,  in  its  primi- 
tive state,  the  Hebrew  original  of  St.  Matthew ;  that  the 
books  used  by  Justin  were  our  four  Gospels ;  that  there  is  no 

*  See  Note  B,  pp.  463-510.  f  See  before,  p.  5,  seqq. 


62  EVIDENCES    OF   THE 

reason  to  doubt,  that  the  four  gospels,  which,  toward  the  end 
of  the  second  century,  Tatian,  who  had  been  a  disciple  of 
Justin  Martyr,  made  the  basis  of  his  Diatessaron,  were  the 
four  canonical  Gospels ;  that  Marcion  had  a  mutilated  copy 
of  St.  Luke,  —  a  fact  which,  in  consequence  of  the  exami- 
nations that  have  taken  place  since  Eichhorn  wrote,  seems 
now  to  be  generally  undisputed ;  that  the  scanty,  uncertain, 
contradictory  information  respecting  Cerinthus  and  his  sect 
affords  no  ground  for  the  conclusion  that  they  used  a  peculiar 
gospel ;  and  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  writings  ascribed  to 
Apostolic  Fathers  which  may  justify  the  supposition,  that, 
previously  to  the  general  reception  of  our  four  Gospels,  other 
gospels  were  in  common  circulation  among  Christians  as 
authentic  histories  of  Christ. 

It  is,  moreover,  affirmed  by  Eichhorn  as  a  general  truth, 
that  "before  the  invention  of  printing,  in  transcribing  a 
manuscript,  the  most  arbitrary  alterations  were  considered 
as  allowable,  since  they  affected  only  an  article  of  private 
property,  written  for  the  use  of  an  individual."*  It  fol- 
lows, that,  in  maintaining  that  the  Gospels  have  under- 
gone a  process  of  corruption,  one  is  only  maintaining  that 
they  shared  the  common  fate  of  all  other  ancient  writings. 
In  proof  of  his  general  proposition,  Eichhorn  alleges,  that 
there  are  many  manuscripts  of  chronicles  of  the  Middle 
Ages,  which,  purporting  to  be  copies  of  the  same  work, 
yet  present  different  texts,  some  containing  more  and  others 
less  ;  and,  in  further  evidence  that  the  most  arbitrary  altera- 
tions by  transcribers  were  considered  as  allowable,  he  cites 
Dionysius  of  Corinth  as  calling  some  who  had  corrupted  his 
writings  apostles  of  Satan.  But  the  proposition,  though 
apparently  laid  down  as  the  basis  of  his  hypothesis,  is  so 
obviously  false  as  hardly  to  admit  of  remark  or  contradiction. 

*  See  before,  p.  8. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  G3 

It  could  only  have  been  made  through  some  strange  inadvert- 
ence. As  the  ordinary  mode  of  dealing  with  books  in  ancient 
times  was,  as  every  one  knows,  the  reverse  of  what  Eiclihorn 
supposes,  it  must  need  very  strong  and  special  reasons  to 
render  the  conjecture  probable,  that  the  Gospels  were  made 
exceptions  to  the  common  usage. 

As  evidence  that  such  was  the  case,  that  the  Gospels  were 
subjected  to  a  mode  of  treatment  different  from  that  which 
other  books  experienced,  a  few  passages  have  been  quoted 
from  ancient  writers  ;  which,  in  fact,  form  the  whole  of  what 
can  be  considered  as  a  direct  attempt  to  prove  the  proposi- 
tion. Two  of  them  —  one  from  Dionysius  of  Corinth,  and  the 
other  from  Origen  —  we  have  already  had  occasion  to  exam- 
ine ;  and  their  true  bearing  appears  to  be  directly  opposed  to 
the  supposition  which  they  have  been  brought  to  establish.* 
Two  others  remain  to  be  considered. 

"  Celsus,"  says  Eiclihorn,  "  objects  to  the  Christians,  that 
they  had  changed  their  Gospels  three  times,  four  times,  and 
oftener,  as  if  they  were  deprived  of  their  senses."  f  The 
passage  is  twice  quoted  by  him,  and  therefore,  it  may  be  pre- 
sumed, is  regarded  as  an  important  proof  of  his  theory.  If 
it  were  correctly  represented  in  the  words  which  have  been 
given,  the  first  obvious  answer  would  be,  that  such  a  charge 
is  as  little  to  be  credited  upon  the  mere  assertion  of  Celsus, 
as  various  other  calumnies  of  that  writer  against  the  Chris- 
tians, which  no  one  at  the  present  day  believes.  But  Celsus 
does  not  say  what  he  is  represented  as  saying.  He  does  not 
bring  the  charge  against  Christians  generally,  but  against 
sot7ie  Christians.  His  words  are  preserved  in  the  work  com- 
posed by  Origen  in  reply  to  Celsus ;  and,  correctly  rendered, 
are  as  follows :  "  Afterwards  Celsus  says,  that  some  believ- 
ers, like  men  driven  by  drunkenness  to  commit  violence  on 

*  See  before,  pp.  38,  39,  and  p.  43,  seqq.  f  See  before,  p.  9. 


64  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

tKemselves,  have  altered  the  Gospel-history*  since  its  first 
composition,  three  times,  four  times,  and  oftener,  and  have 
refashioned  it,  so  as  to  be  able  to  deny  the  objections  made 
against  it."  To  this,  the  whole  reply  of  Origen  is  as  fol- 
j^  lows :  "  I  know  of  none  who  have  altered  the  Gospel-history, 
except  the  followers  of  Marcion,  of  Valentinus,  and  I  think 
also  those  of  Lucan.  But  this  affords  no  ground  for  reproach 
against  the  religion  itself,  but  against  those  who  have  dared 
to  corrupt  the  Gospels.  And  as  it  is  no  reproach  against 
philosophy,  that  there  are  Sophists  or  Epicureans  or  Peripa- 
tetics, or  any  others  who  hold  false  opinions ;  so  also  it  is  no 
reproach  against  true  Christianity,  that  there  are  those  who 
have  altered  the  Gospels,  and  introduced  heresies  foreign 
from  the  teaching  of  Jesus."  t 

It  is  evident,  that  Origen  regarded  the  words  of  Celsus  as  a 
mere  declamatory  accusation,  which  he  was  not  called  upon 
to  repel  by  any  elaborate  reply.  A  grave  charge  against  the 
whole  body  of  Christians,  of  the  nature  of  that  which  Celsus 
urges,  could  not  have  been  dismissed  in  three  sentences  of 
a  long  and  able  work  in  defence  of  Christianity  against  his 
attacks.  The  charge  may  have  been  founded,  as  Origen  sup- 
poses, upon  the  mutilations  and  corruptions  of  the  Gospels 
made  by  some  heretics.  Another  solution  of  it  is,  that  Cel- 
sus, being  acquainted  with  the  four  Gospels,  and  perceiving 
that  they  had  much  in  common  with  much  that  was  different, 
did,  on  this  ground,  represent  Christians  as  having  given  the 
Gospel-history  four  different  forms.  But  if  we  believe  that 
Celsus  fully  understood  the  subject,  and,  having  no  reference 
to  any  heretical  sects  or  to  the  existence  of  four  different 
histories  of  Christ,  really  meant  to  bring  against  catholic 

*  Literally,  the  Gospel^  to  evayje?uov :  but  this  Avord  is  here  used,  as  it  is 
elsewhere  in  ancient  writers,  to  denote  the  Gospel-history.  In  this  use  of  the 
■word,  tlie  four  Gospels  are  commonly  denoted,  considered  collectively,  as 
containing  this  history. 

t  Orig.  cont.  Gels  ,  lib.  ii.  §  27;  0pp. :.  411. 


GENUINENESS    OF   THE    GOSPELS.  65 

Christians  a  grave  charge  of  corrupting  the  Gospels,  then  we 
must  consider  what  is  the  proper  inference  from  the  passage. 
He  was,  as  no  one  will  deny,  forward  enough  in  adducing 
unsupported  and  calumnious  accusations  against  those  whom 
he  was  attacking.  If  there  had  been  any  pretence  for  saying 
that  Christians  generally  had  altered  and  corrupted  the  Gos- 
pels, he  would  have  said  it.  But  he  does  not.  He  merely 
iays,  whether  truly  or  not  may  be  a  question,  that  some 
Christians  had  done  this.  It  is  of  the  nature  of  such  a 
charge,  when  brought  against  some  of  any  community,  to 
exculpate  the  community  in  general.  According,  therefore, 
to  the  implied  testimony  of  their  enemy,  Christians,  generally 
speaking,  had  not  altered  nor  corrupted  the  Gospels. 

But  the  passage  affords  ground  for  further  remark.  Celsus 
compares  the  conduct  of  those  whom  he  charges  with  altering 
the  Gospel-history,  or  the  Gospels,  to  that  of  men  im[)elled 
by  drunkenness  to  commit  violence  on  themselves.  Origen 
does  not  object  to  the  comparison ;  and  there  is  no  objection 
to  be  made  to  the  opinion  implied  in  it,  respecting  the  char- 
acter and  consequences  of  such  a  procedure.  It  is  one  which 
the  friends  and  the  enemies  of  the  religion  must  equally  have 
perceived  to  be  correct.  The  question,  therefore,  whether 
the  early  Christians  altered  the  Gospels,  resolves  itself  into 
the  question,  whether  they  acted  like  men  intoxicated,  to  the 
evident  ruin  of  their  cause. 

The  other  passage,  before  referred  to,  is  from  Clement  of 
Alexandria.  "  Clement  also,  at  the  end  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, speaks  of  those  who  corrupted  the  gospels,  and  ascribes 
it  to  them,  that  at  Matt.  v.  10,  instead  of  the  words,  ybr  theirs 
is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  there  was  found  in  some  manu- 
scripts,/or  they  shall  he  perfect ;  and  in  others, /or  they  shall 
have  a  plane  where  they  shall  not  he  persecuted^  *  This 
statement  is  erroneous.     Clement  does  not  speak  of  those 


*  See  before,  p.  9. 
5 


66  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

who  corrupted,  but  of  those  who  paraphrased,  the  Gospels ; 
nor  does  he  give  the  words  alleged  by  him,  as  various  read- 
ings in  manuscripts  of  the  Gospels.  Quoting  the  original, 
text  incorrectly,  probably  from  memory,  in  these  words,  — 
"  Blessed  are  they  who  are  persecuted  for  righteousness' 
sake,  for  they  shall  be  called  the  sons  of  God,"  *  —  he  adds, 
"  Or,  as  some  who  have  paraphrased  the  Gospels  express 
it,  Blessed  are  they  who  are  persecuted  for  righteousness' 
sake,  for  they  shall  be  perfect;  and.  Blessed  are  they  who 
are  persecuted  for  my  sake,  for  they  shall  attain  a  place 
where  they  shall  not  be  persecuted."  It  is  of  paraph rasts 
or  scholiasts  that  the  passage  is  understood  by  Eichhorn 
himself,  when  writing  without  a  view  to  his  peculiar  theory.f 
Clement  expresses  no  indignation  against  those  of  whom  he 
speaks,  as  he  would  have  done  if  they  had  corrupted  the 
Gospels.  On  the  contrary,  his  quoting  their  words  as  he 
does  implies  a  certain  degree  of  approbation. 

It  is  remarkable,  that,  in  understanding  his  words  as  proving 
a  general  license  of  corruption  during  his  time,  the  extraor- 
dinary and  quite  incredible  nature  of  the  inference  which  is 
to  be  drawn  from  them  has  not  been  adverted  to.  If  his 
words  were  thus  to  be  understood,  they  would  prove,  not  that 
transcribers  made  additions  to  what  they  found  before  them, 
or  occasionally  omitted  or  corrupted  a.  passage,  but  that  they 
indulged  themselves  in  the  most  wanton  alterations  of  the 
plain  language  of  the  Gospels.  There  are  few  passages  less 
exposed  to  intentional  corruption  than  the  one  quoted  by 
Clement ;  and  if  this  were  made  to  assume  three  such  differ- 
ent forms  in  the  manuscripts  which  he  had  seen,  and  if  these 
changes  afforded,  as  is  maintained,  a  specimen  of  the  common 
practice  of  transcribers,  it  would  follow,  that  the  text  of  the 
Gospels  had,  in  the  time  of  Clement,  undergone  great  altera- 

*  The  words  are  not,  as  given  by  Eichhorn,  For  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of 
ieaven. 

*  Einleit.  in  d.  N.  T.,  ui.  553. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  67 

tions,  and  had  assumed  a  very  different  character  in  different 
manuscripts.  There  must  have  been,  in  his  age,  an  astonish- 
ing discordance  among  different  copies  of  the  Gospels.  Some 
must  have  been  very  unlike  others  in  their  modes  of  expres- 
sion, as  well  as  in  their  contents.  But,  if  this  be  the  legitimate 
conclusion  from  the  meaning  which  has  been  put  upon  his 
words,  it  is  only  necessary  to  state  it,  in  order  to  show  that 
that  meaning  must  be  false. 

Such  are  the  main  arguments  in  support  of  the  hypothesis 
of  the  corruption  of  the  Gospels  ;  or,  in  other  words,  such  are 
the  objections  to  the  proposition  that  they  remain  essentially 
the  same  as  they  were  originally  composed.  The  truth  of 
this  proposition,  it  may  be  recollected,  is  proved  by  various 
considerations,  unconnected  with  each  other.  It  appears 
from  the  essential  agreement  among  the  very  numerous 
copies  of  the  Gospels,  so  diverse  in  their  character,  and  in 
their  mode  of  derivation  from  the  original.  This  agreement 
among  different  copies  could  not  have  existed,  unless  some 
archetype  had  been  faithfully  followed ;  and  this  archetype,  it 
has  been  shown,  could  have  been  no  other  than  the  original 
text.  It  appears  from  the  reverence  in  which  the  Gospels 
were  held  by  the  early  Christians,  and  the  deep  sense  which 
they  had  of  the  impropriety  and  guilt  of  making  any  altera- 
tion in  those  writings.  It  appears  from  the  historical  notices 
respecting  their  text,  which  are  wholly  inconsistent  with  the 
supposition  of  its  having  suffered  essential  corruptions.  And, 
finally,  it  appears  from  the  internal  character  of  the  books 
themselves,  which  show  no  marks  of  gross,  intentional  inter- 
polation ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  exhibit  a  consistency  of  style 
and  conception  irreconcilable  with  the  supposition  of  it. 

If,  then,  we  may  consider  the  proposition  as  established,  that 
the  Gospels  remain  essentially  the  same  as  they  were  origi- 
nally composed,  the  remaining  inquiry  is,  whether  they  are 
the  works  of  those  to  whom  they  have  been  ascribed. 


PART   n. 


DIRECT  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCE  THAT  THE  GOSPELS  HATE  BEEN 
ASCRIBED   TO  THEIR   TRUE  AUTHORS. 


PAET  II. 


CHAPTER    I. 

EVIDENCE  FROM  THE  GENERAL  RECEPTION  OF  THE  GOS- 
PELS AS  GENUINE  AMONG  CHRISTIANS  DURING  THE 
LAST    QUARTER    OF    THE    SECOND    CENTURY. 

Having  shown  that  the  Gospels  have  been  transmitted  to 
us  as  they  were  first  written,  I  shall,  in  what  follows,  adduce 
evidence  of  the  fact  that  they  have  been  ascribed  to  their  true 
authors. 

The  proof  which  may  be  first  stated  is,  that  they  were  re- 
garded with  the  highest  reverence,  as  genuine  and  sacred 
books,  by  the  great  body  of  Christians  during  the  last  quarter 
of  the  second  century. 

There  is  little  or  no  dispute  about  the  truth  of  this  proposi- 
tion, and  I  might  perhaps  assume  it  as  established,  and  pro- 
ceed to  reason  upon  it ;  but  it  may  be  better  to  bring  forward 
some  of  the  evidence  on  which  it  rests.  I  have  had  occasion 
already  to  quote,  or  allude  to,  a  part  of  it;*  and  shall  en- 
deavor, as  far  as  possible,  to  avoid  repetition.  The  passages 
before  given  must  be  viewed  in  connection  with  those  here 
alleged. 

One  of  the  earliest  Christian  writers  wliose  works  have 
come  down  to  us  is  Irenieus.     The  exact  time  of  his  birth  is 

*  See  before,  pp.  36-41. 


72  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

uncertain  ;  but  he  was  born  in  the  first  half  of  the  second 
century,  and  but  just  survived  its  close.  Beside  a  few  frag- 
ments of  other  writings,  there  is  only  one  of  his  works  which 
remains  to  us,  —  his  treatise  "Against  Heretics,"  a  name  which, 
in  his  time,  was  limited  in  its  application  to  the  different  sects 
of  Gnostics  and  the  Ebionites.  It  was  in  the  name  of  the 
great  body  of  catholic  believers,  and  in  defence  of  their  opin- 
ions, that  Irenoeus  wrote.  The  first  sentence  of  the  following 
passage  has  been  already  quoted :  — 


"We,"  says  Irenseus,  "  have  not  received  the  knowledge  of  the 
way  of  our  salvation  by  any  others  than  those  through  whom  the 
Gospel  has  come  down  to  us  ;  which  Gospel  they  first  preached,  and 
afterwards,  by  the  will  of  God,  transmitted  to  us  in' writing,  that 
it  might  be  the  foundation  and  pillar  of  our  faith." —  "For  after  our 
Lord  had  risen  from  the  dead,  and  they  [the  apostles]  were  clothed 
with  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  descending  upon  them  from  on 
high,  were  filled  with  all  gifts,  and  possessed  perfect  knowledge, 
they  went  forth  to  the  ends  of  the  earth,  spreading  the  glad  tidings 
of  those  blessings  which  God  has  conferred  upon  us,  and  announcing 
•^eace  from  heaven  to  men ;  having  all,  and  every  one  alike,  the 
Gospel  of  God.  MatthcAv  among  the  Hebrews  published  a  Gospel 
in  their  own  language ;  while  Peter  and  Paul  were  preaching  the 
Gospel  at  Rome,  and  founding  a  ehhrch  there.  And,  after  their 
de])arture  [death],  Mark,  the  disciple  and  interpreter  of  Peter, 
himself  delivered  to  us  in  writing  what  Peter  had  preached ;  and 
Luke,  the  companion  of  Paul,  recorded  the  Gospel  preached  by 
him.  Afterwards,  John,  the  disciple  of  the  Lord  who  leaned  upon 
his  breast,  likewise  published  a  Gospel  while  he  dwelt  at  Ephesus, 
in  Asia.  And  all  these  have  taught  us,  that  there  is  one  God,  the 
Maker  of  heaven  and  earth,  announced  by  the  Law  and  the  Proph- 
ets ;  and  one  Christ,  the  Son  of  God.  And  he  who  does  not  assent 
to  them  despises  indeed  those  who  knew  the  mind  of  the  Lord  ;  but 
he  despises  also  Christ  himself  the  Lord,  and  he  despises  likewise 
the  Father,  and  is  self-condemned,  resisting  and  opposing  his  own 
salvation  ;  and  this  all  heretics  do."* 

*  Contra  Ilteres.,  lUi.  iii.  c-  1,  pp.  173,  174. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  73 

In  this  passage  it  may  be  observed,  that  Irenteus,  in  defend- 
ing the  Christian  doctrine,  rests  it  upon  the  authority  of  the 
Gospels  ;  tliat  he  even  does  this  without  mentioning  the  other 
books  of  tlie  New  Testament ;  that  he  considers  the  former  as 
having  been  composed,  that  they  might  be  the  foundation  and 
piUar  of  the  faith  of  Christians ;  and  that  he  assigns  them, 
without  doubt  or  hesitation,  to  the  authors  by  whom  we  be- 
lieve them  to  have  been  w^ritten.  The  following  passage  is 
to  the  same  effect :  — 

•*  Nor  can  there  be  more  or  fewer  Gospels  than  these.  For,  as 
there  are  four  regions  of  the  world  in  which  we  live,  and  four  car- 
dinal winds,  and  the  Church  is  spread  over  all  the  earth,  and  the 
Gospel  is  the  pillar  and  support  of  the  Church,  and  the  breath  of 
life ;  in  like  manner  is  it  fit  that  it  should  have  four  pillars,  breath- 
ing on  all  sides  incorruption,  and  refreshing  mankind.  Whence  it 
is  manifest,  that  the  Logos,  the  former  of  all  things,  who  sits  upon 
the  cherubim,  and  holds  together  all  things,  having  appeared  to 
men,  has  given  us  a  Gospel  fourfold  in  its  form,  but  held  together 
by  one  spirit."  —  "The  Gospel  according  to  John  declares  his 
princely,  complete,  and  glorious  generation  from  the  Father,  say- 
ing, 'In  the  beginning  was  the  Logos,  and  the  Logos  was  with  God, 
and  the  Logos  was  God  ;  all  things  were  made  by  him,  and  without 
him  was  nothing  made.'" —  "  The  Gospel  according  to  Luke,  being 
of  a  priestly  character,  begins  with  Zacharias,  the  priest,  offering 
incense  to  God."  —  "Matthew  proclaims  his  human  generation, 
saying,  '  The  genealogy  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  son  of  David,  the  son 
of  Abraham.'" — "Mark  begins  with  the  prophetic  Spirit,  which 
came  down  from  above  to  men,  saying,  '  The  beginning  of  the  Gos- 
pel of  Jesus  Christ;  as  it  is  written  in  Isaiah  the  prophet.'"* 

Here,  again,  the  same  remarks  may  be  made  as  before. 
The  Gospels  are  expressly  assigned  to  the  authors  to  whom 
we  ascribe  them ;  and  they  are  spoken  of  as  the  four  pillars 
of  the  Church,  breathing  on  all  sides  incorruption,  and  re- 
freshing mankind.     The  figure  has  been  ridiculed;  but  the 

*  Contra  Haeres.,  lib.  iii.  c  11,  §  8,  pp.  190,  191. 


74  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

meaning  is  sufficiently  clear,  and  the  want  of  metaplioricai 
elegance  does  not  affect  the  present  argument. 

I  pass  over  other  passages,  to  be  found  in  Lardner,  in 
which  Iremi3us  speaks  of  the  Gospels,  referring  them  to  their 
authors,  and  remarking  generally  upon  their  character  and 
contents,  'i'he  passages  cited  by  him  from  the  Gospels,  many 
of  which  are  cited  more  than  once,  may  be  found  collected  in 
ISIassuet's  edition  of  his  works.  They  fill  about  eleven,  closely 
printed  folio  columns ;  while  the  passages  cited  from  all  the 
Old  Testament  fill  about  fifteen  such  columns.  He  appeals 
to  tlie  Gospels  continually ;  and  quotes  them  as  undoubted 
authority  for  the  faith  of  the  great  body  of  Christians,  with 
the  same  confidence  which  might  be  felt  by  any-writer  of  the 
present  day.  They  were  books  in  general  circulation,  and 
commonly  studied. 

Such  is  the  information  afforded  bj''  Irenteus  concerning 
the  general  reception  of  the  Gospels  in  his  time.  He  had 
spent  some  portion  of  the  earlier  part  of  his  life  in  Asia ;  but 
was,  at  the  time  when  he  wrote,  bishop  of  Lyons,  in  Gaul. 

From  Gaul  we  return  to  Asia.  Theophilus,  whom  I  shall 
next  quote,  was  bishop  of  Antioch  before  the  year  170,  and 
died  before  the  end  of  the  second  century.  Of  his  writings, 
we  have  remaining  only  one  work,  containing  an  account  and 
defence  of  Christianity,  addressed  to  Autolycus,  a  heathen. 
After  some  mention  of  the  Jewish  Law  and  Prophets,  he 
has  this  passage ;  "  Concerning  the  righteousness  of  which 
the  Law  speaks,  the  like  things  are  to  be  found  also  in  the 
Prophets  and  Gospels,  because  they  all  spoke  by  the  inspira- 
tion of  one  spirit  of  God."  *  The  estimation  in  which  the 
Gospels  were  held  by  Christians  appears  as  well  in  the  pas- 
sage just  quoted  as  in  the  following:  "These  things,"  says 
Theophilus,   "  the    Holy   Scriptures   teach   us,  and   all    who 

*  3out  X  Hseres.,  lib.  iii.  §  12. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  75 

were  moved  by  the  Spirit ;  among  whom  John  says,  '  In  the 
beginning  was  the  Logos,  and  the  Logos  was  with  God.'  "  * 
Having  quoted  a  passage  from  the  Old  Testament  (Prov. 
iv.  25,  26),  which  he  interprets  as  a  precept  of  chastity,  he 
says,  "  But  the  Evangelic  voice  teaches  purity  yet  more  im- 
peratively," and  then  quotes  Matt.  v.  28  and  32  in  proof 
of  his  assertion.!  A  little  after,  he  quotes  several  precepts 
from  Matthew  and  from  St.  Paul ;  introducing  those  taken 
from  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  with  the  expression,  "  The  Gos- 
pel says."  t 

From  Antioch  we  pass  to  Carthage.  Here  Tertullian  was 
born,  and  here  he  appears  principally  to  have  resided.  The 
dates  of  his  birth  and  death  are  both  uncertain  ;  but  he  be- 
came distinguished  as  a  writer  about  the  close  of  the  second 
century.  No  evidence  can  be  more  full  and  satisfactory  than 
that  which  he  affords  of  the  general  reception  of  the  Gospels, 
and  of  their  authority  as  the  foundation  of  the  Christian 
faith.  He  ascribes  them  without  hesitation  to  the  authors  by 
whom  we  believe  them  to  have  been  written ;  and  he  rests 
the  proof  of  their  genuineness  upon  unbroken  tradition  in 
the  churches  founded  by  the  apostles.  There  is  not  a  chap- 
ter in  the  Gospels  of  Matthew,  Luke,  and  John,  from  which 
he  does  not  quote ;  and  from  most  of  them  his  quotations  are 
numerous.  "  We  lay  it  down,"  says  Tertullian,  "  in  the  first 
place,  that  the  Evangelic  Document  §  had  for  its  authors 
apostles,  to  whom  this  office  of  promulgating  the  Gospel  was 
assigned  by  our  Lord  himself.  And,  if  some  of  th.em  were 
companions  of  apostles,  yet  they  did  not  stand  alone,  bu6 
were  connected  with  and  guided  by  apostles."  —  "  Among  the 
apostles,  John  and  Matthew  form  the  faith  within  us.    Among 

*  L.b.  ii.  §  22.  t  Lib.  iii.  §  13.  I  Ibid.,  §  14. 

§  EvmigeUciim  instrumenium.  "  Instrumentiim "  is  here  used,  as  it  if 
often  by  Tertullian,  in  a  metaphorical  sense,  derived  from  its  technical  mean 
ing,  as  signifying  a  legal  iiistrument  which  may  be  produced  in  evidence. 


76  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

the  companions  of  the  apostles,  Luke  and  Mark  renovate 
it."*  The  Gospels  are  always  appealed  to  by  him  as  de- 
cisive authority  for  the  faith  of  Christians.  The  evangelists 
and  apostles  are  placed  by  him,  as  they  are  by  Irena^us  and 
Theophilus,  in  the  same  rank  with  the  Jewish  prophets.  In 
his  time,  the  Scriptures,  among  which  the  Gospels  held  the 
first  place,  were  publicly  read,  as  at  the  present  day,  in  the 
assemblies  of  Christians.  "  We  come  together,"  he  says,  "  to 
bring  to  mind  the  divine  Scriptures,  for  the  purpose  of  warn- 
ing or  admonition,  if  the  state  of  the  times  require  it.  Cer-. 
tainly,  we  nourish  our  faith,  raise  our  hopes,  and  confirm  oul 
trust,  by  the  sacred  words."  f  The  Christian  Scriptures  wer^ 
accessible  to  all.  In  one  of  his  writings,  a  defence  of  Chris- 
tians addressed  to  heathens,  he  says,  "  Examine  the  words  of 
God,  our  literature,  which  we  are  far  from  concealing,  and 
which  many  accidents  throw  in  the  way  of  those  who  are  not 
of  our  number."  $  He  then  quotes  two  passages  from  these 
Scriptures,  one  from  the  Gospels,  and  another  from  the  Epis- 
tles, in  evidence  of  what  Christians  believed  to  be  their  duty 
in  regard  to  civil  government. 

In  defending  the  genuine  Gospel  of  Luke  against  the 
mutilated  gospel  used  by  Marcion,  Tertullian  has  the  fol- 
lowing passage,  a  part  of  which  has  been  already  quoted : 
"To  give  the  sum  of  all,  if  it  be  certain,  that  that  is  most 
genuine  which  is  most  ancient,  that  most  ancient  Avhich  has 
been  from  the  beginning,  and  that  from  the  beginning  which 
was  from  the  apostles  ;  so  it  is  equally  certain  that  that  was 
delivered  by  the  apostles  which  has  been  held  sacred  in 
the  churches  of  the  apostles."  He  then  enumerates  various 
churches  founded  by  apostles,  which  were  still  flourishing, 
and  proceeds :  "  I  affirm,  then,  that  in  those  churches,  and 
not  in  those  only  which  were  founded  by  the  apostles,  but 


*  Advers.  Marcionem.  lib.  iv.  §  2,  p.  414. 

t  Apologet.,  §  39,  p.  31.  f  Ibid.,  §  31,  p.  27. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS,  77 

in  all  which  have  fellowship  with  them,  that  Gospel  of  Luke 
which  we  so  steadfastly  defend  has  been  received  from  its  first 
publication."  —  "  The  same  authority,"  he  adds,  "  of  the  apos- 
tolic churches  will  support  the  other  Gospels,  which,  in  like 
manner,  we  have  from  them,  conformably  to  their  copies."  * 

We  will  pass  from  Carthage  to  Alexandria,  the  residence 
of  Clement.  Here  was  a  celebrated  school  for  the  instruc 
tion  of  Christians,  founded,  probably,  early  in  the  second 
century,  oi"  which  Clement  was,  in  his  time,  the  principal 
master.  He  was  eminent  during  the  latter  part  of  the 
second  and  the  beginning  of  the  third  century. 

In  the  evidence  which  Clement  affords  of  the  general  re- 
ception of  the  Gospels  as  sacred  books,  there  is  nothing  of  a 
peculiar  character.  It  is  similar  to  that  already  adduced 
from  Irenceus  and  Tertullian.  His  very  numerous  quota- 
tions from  the  Gospels  in  his  extant  works  are,  at  the  present 
day,  an  important  means  of  settling  their  true  text.  In  one 
passage,  he  proposes,  after  showing  that  "  the  Scriptures 
which  we  [Christians]  have  believed  are  confirmed  by  the 
Omnipotent,"  "to  evince  from  them,  in  opposition  to  all 
heretics,  that  there  is  one  God  and  Almight}^  Lord,  clearly 
proclaimed  by  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  and,  together  with 
them,  by  the  blessed  Gospel."  f  This  affords  a  specimen  of 
the  manner  in  which  the  Gospels  are  appealed  to  by  him.  In 
another  place,  in  reasoning  against  certain  heretics,  he  notices 
a  saying  ascribed  to  Christ,  quoted  by  them  in  support  of 
their  opinions  from  an  apocryphal  book,  called  "  The  Gospel 
according  to  the  Egyptians ; "  and  commences  his  answer 
with  this  remark :  "  In  the  first  place,  we  have  not  that  say- 
ing in  the  four  Gospels  which  have  been  handed  down  to 
us."  t     Here,  in  a  few  words,  he  expresses  his  sense  of  the 


*  Advers.  IMarcionem,  lib.  iv.  §  5,  pp.  415,  416. 

t  Stromal.,  lib.  iv.  §  1,  p.  564.  X  Ibid.,  lib.  iii.  §  13,  p.  553. 


78  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

exclusive  authority  of  the  Gospels  as  histories  of  our  Saviour; 
and  the  fact  of  their  reception  before  his  time.  The  Gospels 
had  been  handed  down  to  the  Christians  of  his  age ;  that  is, 
the'  Christians  who  lived  about  the  end  of  the  second  century. 
By  Clement  was  preserved,  as  has  been  before  stated,  a  tradi- 
tion received  from  ancient  presbyters  concerning  the  order 
in  which  they  were  written.  According  to  this  tradition, 
*'  The  Gospels  containing  the  genealogies  were  written  first. 
The  following  providence  gave  occasion  to  that  of  Mark. 
While  Peter  was  publicly  preaching  the  word  at  Rome,  and 
through  the  power  of  the  Spirit  making  known  the  Gospel, 
his  hearers,  who  were  numerous,  exhorted  Mark,  upon  the 
ground  of  his  having  accompanied  him  for  a  long  time,  and 
having  his  discourses  in  memory,  to  write  down  what  he  had 
spoken ;  and  Mark,  composing  his  Gospel,  delivered  it  to 
those  who  made  the  request.  Peter,  knowing  this,  was  not 
earnest  either  to  forbid  or  to  encourage  it.  In  the  last  place, 
John,  observing  that  the  things  obvious  to  the  senses  had 
been  clearly  set  forth  in  those  Gospels,  being  urged  by  his 
friends,  and  divinely  moved  by  the  Spirit,  composed  a 
spiritual  Gospel."* 

In  the  second  century,  but  how  long  before  its  close  cannot 
be  determined,  Celsus  wrote  against  Christianity.  About 
the  middle  of  the  third  century,  his  work  was  answered  by 
Origen,  who  speaks  of  him  as  long  since  dead;t  and  who 
evidently  was  unable,  confidently,  to  identify  him  with  any 
known  individual.  Origen  seems  to  have  observed  upon 
every  important  particular  contained  in  it,  and  has  given 
many  extracts  from  it.  It  appears  from  these  extracts,  that 
Christians,  in  the  time  of  Celsus,  had  histories  of  our  Sa- 
viour,  which    they  believed   to   have   been  written   by   his 


*  Apud  Euseb.  H.  E  ,  lib.  vi.  c.  14.    Comp.  lib.  ii.  c.  15. 
t  Cont.  Cels.  Pr«fat.,  §  4;  0pp.  i.  317. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         79 

disciples,  and  the  genuineness  of  which  was  not  contro- 
verted by  him.  Without  mentioning  their  authors  by  name, 
he  frequently  quotes  and  refers  to  them.  It  has  been  ob- 
served with  truth,  that  an  abridgment  of  the  history  of 
Jesus,  corresponding  to  that  in  the  Gospels,  may  be  found 
in  the  remains  of  his  work.  He  discusses  the  account  of  the 
miraculous  birtli  of  Christ,  remarking  various  particulars  re- 
lated iu  the  first  two  chapters  of  Matthew's  Gospel.  He 
refers  to  the  appearance  and  voice  from  heaven  at  our  Lord's 
baptism.  He  alludes  to  the  account  of  his  temptation.  Pie 
says  that  he  collected  "  ten  or  eleven  publicans  and  sailors," 
with  whom  he  travelled  about  "procuring  a  shameful  and 
beggarly  subsistence."  He  calls  Christ  himself  a  carpenter.* 
He  speaks  of  his  miracles,  of  his  having  cured  the  lame  and 
blind,  fed  a  multitude  with,  a  few  loaves,  and  raised  the  dead ; 
and  argues  upon  the  supposition  that  these  facts  really  took 
place.  He  says  it  was  a  fiction  of  his  disciples,  that  Jesus 
foreknew  and  foretold  whatever  should  befell  him.  He 
refers  to  the  prediction  of  our  Saviour,  that  deceivers  should 
come  in  his  name.  He  animadverts  upon  various  passages 
in  our  Lord's  discourses :  upon  liis  direction  to  his  first  disci- 
ples to  exercise  a  peculiar  trust  in  the  providence  of  God,  to 
observe  the  lilies  and  the  ravens  ;'\  uj)on  his  precept,  If  any 
man  strike  thee  on  the  right  cheek,  turn  to  him  the  other 
also  ;  upon  his  saying.  It  is  impossible  to  serve  two  inasters  ; 
and  upon  his  declaration,  It  is  easier  for  a  camel  to  pass 
through  the  eye  of  a  needle  than  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  the 
kingdom  of  God.  He  refers  to  the  incredulity  with  which 
he  was  heard,  and  to  his  deimnciations  against  the  Pharisees. 
He  speaks  of  his  having  been  betrayed  by  one  disciple,  and 
denied  by  another ;  of  his  prayer,  Father,  if  it  be  possible,  let 
this  cup  pass  from  me :  of  the  soldiers  who  derided  him  ;  of 
the  purple  robe,  the  crown  of  thorns,  and  the  reed  wliich  was 

*  Mark  vi.  3.  f  Luke  xii.  24,  27. 


80  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

put  into  his  hand ;  of  the  vinegar  mixed  with  bitter  drugs, 
offered  him  at  his  crucifixion  ;  of  his  saying,  I  thirst ;  of  the 
loud  cry  which  he  uttered  just  before  expiring ;  of  the  earth- 
quake and  darkness  which  accompanied  his  death ;  of  his 
rising  from  the  dead ;  of  the  angel  who  removed  the  stone 
at  the  door  of  the  sepulchre;  of  his  appearing,  not  to  his 
enemies,  but  to  a  "distracted  woman"  (Mary  Magdalene) 
and  "  others,  engaged  with  him  in  the  same  magical  arts;" 
and  of  his  exhibiting  his  hands,  as  they  had  been  wounded 
on  the  cross,  which  last  circumstance  is  mentioned  by  St. 
John  alone.* 

In  one  passage,  Celsus  says  that  those  who  had  given  gene- 
alogies of  Jesus  had  had  the  confidence  to  derive -his  descent 
from  the  first  man,  and  from  the  Jewish  kings ;  referring  to 
the  genealogies  found  in  the  first  two  chapters  of  Matthew 
and  in  Luke.  In  another  passage,  he  appears  to  refer  at  once 
to  all  our  four  Gospels  ;  for  he  observes,  that  "  some  relate  that 
one,  and  some  that  two,  angels  descended  to  his  sepulchre 
to  announce  to  the  women  that  Jesus  was  risen."  Matthew 
and  Mark  speak  of  but  one  angel :  Luke  and  John  mention 
two. 

The  numerous  objections  of  Celsus  to  the  accounts  received 
by  Christians  respecting  our  Saviour  are  always  made  to  ac- 
counts found  in  the  Gospels.  After  remarking  upon  several 
passages,  he  says,  "  These  things  are  from  your  own  books, 
for  we  need  no  other  testimony.  Thus  you  fall  by  your  ovvij 
hands."  He  nowhere  implies  the  existence  of  any  narrative 
respecting  Christ,  as  believed  by  Christians,  which  is  not  re- 
lated by  the  evangelists.t 

That  the  histories  of  Christ  referred  to  by  Celsus  were  oui 
present  Gospels,  appears  from  the  general  correspondence  of 


*  John  XX.  27. 

t  For  the  references  to  the  passages  quoted  above,  see  Lardner's  Ancient 
Heathen  Testimonies,  chap,  xviii. ;  Works  (4to  ed.),  iv.  113,  seqq. 


GENUINENESS  OP  THE  GOSPELS.  81 

their  contents ;  from  the  particular  coincidences  which  have 
been  pointed  out ;  from  their  identity  with  the  Gospels  being 
constantly  implied  by  Origen,  without  the  appearance  of  his 
entertaining  any  doubt  upon  the  subject;  from  their  being 
attacked  by  Celsus  as  the  acknowledged  records  of  the  reli- 
gion ;  and  from  the  impossibility  that  in  his  time  there  should 
have  existed  a  set  of  books  bearing  this  character,  which  have 
been  forgotten,  and  superseded  by  another  set. 

But,  in  attacking  these  books,  —  that  is,  our  present  Gos- 
pels, —  Celsus  evidently  considered  himself  to  be  undermining 
the  foundations  of  Christianity ;  to  be  attacking  books  re- 
garded by  Christians  as  of  the  highest  authority,  —  as  the 
authentic  records  of  the  history  of  their  Master,  composed  or 
sanctioned  by  his  immediate  disciples.  We  have,  then,  the 
evidence  of  an  enemy  of  our  religion,  that  the  Gospels  were 
thus  regarded  by  the  Christians  of  his  age. 

Origen  was  born  about  the  year  185,  and  died  about  the 
year  254.  There  was  no  Christian  writer  whose  authority 
was  so  high  in  his  own  time,  and  in  the  period  immediately 
following.  His  works,  only  a  small  portion  of  which  remains 
in  their  original  language,  —  the  Greek,  —  were  very  mlmer- 
ous.  He  was  eminent  for  his  talents,  and  for  the  extent  ot 
his  learning.  Nor  was  he  less  distinguished  for  his  piety,  his 
integrity,  and  his  scrupulous  conscientiousness.  He  was  also, 
as  I  have  before  observed,  a  careful  critic  of  the  text  of  the 
Septuagint  and  of  the  New  Testament.  In  those  of  his  works 
which  are  still  extant  in  the  original,  the  Gospels  are  quoted 
so  frequently,  that,  supposing  all  other  copies  of  them  to  be 
lost,  those  of  Matthew,  Luke,  and  John  might  be  restored 
almost  entire  from  his  quotations  alone,  if  we  had  a  clue  by 
which  to  arrange  them.  In  speaking  of  the  history  of  their 
composition,  he  professes  to  give  what  he  had  "  learnt  by  tra- 
dition concerning  the  four  Gospels,  which  alone  are  received 
without  controversy  by  the  Church  of  God  under  heaven." 

G 


82  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

He  says,  "  The  Gospel  of  Matthew,  who,  from  being  a  tax- 
gatherer,  became  an  apostle  of  Christ,  was  the  first  written.  It 
was  composed  in  Hebrew,  and  published  for  the  use  of  Jewish 
believers.  Mark  next  wrote  his  Gospel,  conformably  to  the 
accounts  which  he  had  received  from  Peter.  Hence,  Peter, 
m  his  catholic  Epistle,  acknowledges  him  as  his  son,  saying, 
The  sister  church  in  Babylon  salutes  you  ;  also,  my  son  Mark. 
The  Gospel  of  Luke,  that  which  is  praised  by  St.  Paul,  was 
the  third,  and  was  composed  for  Gentile  believers.  Last  of 
all  followed  that  of  John.'"*  Elsewhere  Origen  writes  thus: 
"  We  may,  then,  be  bold  to  say,  that  the  Gospel  t  is  the  prime 
fruit  of  all  the  Scriptures."  —  "  Of  the  Scriptures  which  are 
in  common  use,  and  which  are  believed  to  be  divine-  by  all  the 
churches  of  God,  one  would  not  err  in  calling  the  Law  of 
Moses  the  first  fruit,  and  the  Gospel  the  prime  fruit."  |  — 
"  The  Gospels  are,  as  it  were,  the  elements  of  the  faith  of  the 
Church,  of  which  elements  the  whole  world  that  is  reconciled 
to  God  by  Christ  consists."  §  I  have  before  had  occasion  to 
quote  a  passage  in  which  Origen  speaks  of  the  Scriptures  as 
"  books  in  the  most  common  use."  || 

Origen,  as  we  have  seen,  speaks  of  the  Gospels  as  "re- 

*  Apud  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  vi.  c.  25. 

t  By  the  Gospel,  here,  as  elsewhere,  is  to  be  understood  the  Gospel-his- 
tory, or  the  four  Gospels. 

X  Comment,  in  Joan  ,  torn.  i.  §  4;  0pp.  iv.  p.  4.  Conformably  to  Origen's 
meaning,  and  to  the  proper  sense  of  the  terms,  I  have  rendered  iTpcoruyivvTjjj.a, 
first  fruit,  and  a-afjxv',  i)rime  fruit.  These  words  were  borrowed  by  him  from 
the  Septuagint,  and  denote  two  different  kinds  of  oblations,  both  of  which, 
in  our  Common  Version,  are  indiscriminateh--  called  ''first  fruits."  By 
TrptJToyevvrjfia,  frst  fruit,  is  meant  that  first  produced,  of  which  an  offer- 
ing was  made  on  the  day  after  the  Passover  (Lev.  xxiii.  10-14).  By 
unapxh,  2)rime  fruit,  is  meant  the  best  of  the  harvest,  ^vhich  was  to  be  set 
aside  for  the  priests,  and  from  which  an  offering  was  to  be  made  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost,  and  perhaps  at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  (Lev.  xxiii.  15-20; 
Numb,  xviii.  12,  13;  Deut.  xviii.  4).  "  We  must  understand,"  says  Origen, 
"  that  the  j)rime  fruit  and  the  frst  fruit  are  not  the  same.  For  the  prime 
fruit  w^as  offered  after  the  harvest,  but  the  frst  fruit  before." 

§  Ibid.,  §  6,  p.  5.  11  See  before,  p.  32. 


-   GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  83 

ceived  without  controversy,"  and  as  "believed  bj  all  the 
churches  of  God."  If  these  expressions  were  to  be  inter- 
preted, with  the  narrowest  limitation,  as  relatins^  only  to  the 
state  of  things  at  the  i)recise  time  when  he  wrote,  we  might 
still  infer  that  the  Gospels  had  been  received  as  of  equal 
authority  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  second  century;  since 
nothing  had  occurred  during  the  short  intervening  period  to 
produce  a  unanimity  which  did  not  then  exist.  If  there  had 
been  any  dissension  or  difference  of  opinion  tlien,  it  is  impos- 
sible that  unanimity  should  have  been  afterwards  produced 
without  some  controversy  or  discussion,  without  some  trace 
remaining  of  the  change  from  one  state  of  opinion  to  an- 
other; but  nothing  of  this  sort  appears.  Origen,  however,  in 
the  expressions  which  he  uses,  does  not  refer  to  his  own  time 
alone.  His  language  is  meant  to  include  all  Christians,  from 
the  first  promulgation  of  the  Gospels.  It  appears  from  the 
writings  of  the  fathers  generally,  that  the  books  which  Chris- 
tians received  as  sacred  books  of  the  highest  authority  were, 
as  they  believed,  distinguished  from  all  others  pretending  to 
the  same  character,  by  the  circumstance  that  they  had  been 
unanimously  so  received  from  the  apostolic  age  through  every 
successive  generation  of  catholic  Christians. 

In  estimating  the  weight  of  evidence  which  has  thus  far 
been  adduced  for  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  we  must 
keep  in  mind,  what  has  not  always  been  sufficiently  attended 
to,  that  it  is  not  the  testimony  of  certain  individual  writers 
alone  on  which  we  rely,  important  as  their  testimony  might 
be.  The>e  writers  speak  for  a  whole  community,  every  mem- 
ber of  which  had  the  strongest  reasons  for  ascertaining  the 
correctness  of  his  faith  respecting  the  authenticity,  and  con- 
sequently the  genuineness,  of  the  Gospels.  We  quote  the 
Christian  fathers,  not  chiefly  to  prove  their  individual  belief, 
but  in  evidence  of  the  belief  of  the  community  to  which  they 
belonged.     It  is  not,  therefore,  the  simple  testimony  of  Ire- 


84  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

n»us  and  Theopliilus  and  Tertullian  and  Clement  and  Origev 
which  we  bring  forward  :  it  is  the  testimony  of  thousands  ana 
tens  of  thousands  of  believers,  many  of  wliom  were  as  well 
hiformed  as  they  were  on  this  particular  subject,  and  as 
capable  of  making  a  right  judgment.  All  these  believers 
were  equally  ready  with  the  writers  who  have  been  quoted, 
to  affirm  the  authority  and  genuineness  of  the  Gospels.  The 
most  distinguished  Christians  of  the  age,  men  held  in  high 
esteem  by  their  contemporaries  and  successors,  assert  that  the 
Gospels  were  received  as  genuine  throughout  the  community 
of  which  they  were  members,  and  for  which  they  were 
writing.  That  the  assertion  was  made  by  such  men,  under 
such  circumstances,  is  sufficient  evidence  of  its  truth.  But 
the  proof  of  the  general  reception  of  the  Gospels  does  not 
rest  upon  their  assertions  only,  though  these  cannot  be 
doubted.  It  is  necessarily  implied  in  their  statements  and 
reasonings  respecting  their  religion.  It  is  impossible  that 
they  should  have  so  abundantly  quoted  the  Gospels,  as  con- 
clusive authority  for  their  own  faith  and  that  of  their  fellow- 
Chri.-tians,  if  these  books  had  not  been  regarded  by  Christians 
as  conclusive  authority.  We  cannot  infer  more  confidently 
from  the  sermons  of  Tillotson  and  Clarke  the  estimation  in 
which  the  Gospels  were  held  in  their  day,  than  we  may  infer 
from  the  writers  before  mentioned,  that  they  were  held  in 
similar  estimation  during  the  period  when  they  lived. 

The  testimony  to  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels  is  there- 
fore distinct  in  its  character  from  that  which  may  be  adduced 
to  prove  the  genuineness  of  ancient  profane  writings.  As 
testimony  to  this,  we  are  able,  perhaps,  to  collect  from  difier- 
ent  authors  a  few  passages,  in  which  the  writing  in  question 
is  quoted  as  the  work  of  the  individual  to  whom  it  is  ascribed, 
or  in  which  it  is  expressly  affirmed  that  he  composed  such  a 
work.  We  may  even  find  it  mentioned  as  his  work  in  some 
other  composition,  ascribed  to  the  same  individual ;  but  this 
alone  does  not  affect  the  nature  of  the  evidence,  since  the 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  85 

genuineness  of  the  last-mentioned  writing  remains  to  be 
proved,  and,  as  far  as  testimony  is  concerned,  can  be  proved 
only  by  the  testimony  of  individual  writers.  But  these 
writers  do  not  speak  in  the  name  and  with  the  sanction  of  a 
whole  community,  every  member  of  which  was  deeply  and 
personally  concerned  in  the  question  whether  the  book  were 
genuine  or  not.  They  give  their  testimony  simply  as  indi- 
viduals ;  and  they  were,  for  the  most  part,  individuals  who 
had  no  interest  in  ascertaining  the  truth,  and  perhaps  little 
curiosity  about  it.  We  have  commonly  no  ground  for  sup- 
posing, that  any  circumstance  had  led  them  to  a  scrupulous 
examination  of  the  claims  of  the  work.  We  have  no  cer- 
tainty that  its  genuineness  was  not  doubted  by  others,  equally 
well  informed  with  the  authors  whom  we  quote.  But  such  is 
not  the  character  of  the  historical  evidence  produced  for  the 
genuineness  of  the  Gospels.  The  whole  community  of  Chris- 
tians is  brought  to  testify  their  belief  respecting  a  subject 
which  deeply  interested  them,  and  about  which,  as  we  shall 
now  proceed  to  observe,  they  were  in  circumstances  to  be 
fully  informed. 

That  Christians  during  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century 
had  sufficient  means  of  determining  whether  the  Gospels  were 
genuine  or  not,  may  appear  from  the  consideration,  that  they 
must  have  been  acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  promulga- 
tion of  these  books.  If  the  Gospels  were  the  works  of  those 
to  whom  they  are  ascribed,  they  had  bjeen  received  as  such 
by  the  contemporaries  of  the  evangelists,  —  by  apostles,  and 
the  companions  and  disciples  of  apostles.  They  had  been 
handed  down  by  them  to  succeeding  Christians,  as  the  authen- 
tic histories  of  their  Master.  There  had  been  a  clear,  un- 
brok(^n,  and  therefore  incontrovertible  acknowledgment  of 
their  genuineness,  during  the  period  of  somewhat  more  than 
a  century  which  had  elapsed  between  the  time  when  the 
earliest  of  them  was  written,  and  the  time  to  which  we  have 


86  EVIDENCES    OF   THE 

clearly  traced  back  their  general  reception.  Such  must  have 
been  the  state  of  the  case  upon  the  supposition  of  their  genu- 
ineness ;  but  their  history,  whatever  it  were,  must  have  been 
very  different,  if  they  were  not  genuine.  In  the  latter  case, 
they  had  not  been  known  as  the  works  of  their  pretended 
authors  by  the  contemporaries  of  those  to  whom  they  were 
afterwards  ascribed.  They  had  not,  consequently,  been 
handed  down  from  the  first  to  the  second  generation  of  Chris- 
tians as  the  works  of  those  individuals.  But,  during  the  latter 
part  of  the  second  century,  the  only  satisfactory  evidence  c-f 
their  genuineness,  tliat  which  the  case  necessarily  demanded, 
must  have  been  their  general  acknowledgment  as  genu- 
ine since  the  time  of  tlieir  supposed  composition.  .  This  is 
the  proof  on  which  the  Christian  fathers,  and  consequently  the 
proof  on  which  the  Christian  community,  relied :  and  it  is  of 
some  importance  to  observe,  that  they  relied  upon  this  alone ; 
that  the  earlier  writers  of  whom  we  speak  bring  forward  no 
other  argument  in  support  of  their  belief.  Those  facts  in  the 
history  of  the  Gospels  which  must  have  been  of  common 
notoriety  were  decisive  of  the  question.  On  the  one  hand, 
if  the  facts  necessary  to  prove  their  genuineness  had  really 
existed,  the  evidence  was  incontrovertible  ;  on  the  other  hand, 
if  these  flicts  had  not  existed,  every  other  pretended  proof  of 
the  genuineness  of  the  books  must  have  been  wholly  unsatis- 
factory. 

But  the  Christians  of  the  latter  half  of  the  second  century 
could  not  be  ignorant  of  the  history  of  the  Gospels,  or,  in 
other  words,  of  the  manner  in  which  they  had  been  regarded 
by  their  predecessors.  From  the  statements  wliich  have  been 
quoted  from  different  writers,  we  may  fairly  take  the  year  175 
as  a  period  when,  as  shown  by  direct  historical  evidence,  the 
Gospels  were  generally  received  among  Christians.  But 
the  old  men  of  this  period  were  born  about  the  end  of  the 
first  and  the  beginning  of  the  second  century.  During  their 
youth,  they  had  been  contemporary  with  those  who  had  been 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  87 

contemporary  with  the  apostles  and  the  other  disciples  of 
Christ  himself,  and  who  might  have  received  immediate  in- 
struction from  them.  IrenjEus  informs  us,  that  he  had  listened 
to  the  discourses  of  Poljcarp,  Avho  had  been  a  disciple  of  St. 
John,  and  conversant  with  others  who  had  seen  the  Lord.* 
This  fact  is  important,  as  it  respects  the  value  of  the  indi- 
vi<iual  testimony  of  Iremeus  to  the  genuineness  of  the 
Gospels.  But  it  is  also  to  be  regarded  as  a  particular 
exemplification  of  a  general  truth,  about  which  there  can 
be  no  dispute,  —  that  it  needed  but  a  single  link  in  the  chain 
of  succession,  to  connect  the  old  men  of  the  time  of  Irenreus 
with  the  apostolic  age.  Such  being  the  case,  the  Christians 
of  his  time  could  not  be  ignorant  of  the  manner  in  which  the 
Gospels  had  been  regarded  by  their  predecessors ;  and,  in  his 
time,  the  belief  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels  was  estab- 
lished throughout  the  Christian  community. 

But  Christians  at  that  period,  equally  with  Christians  at 
the  present  day,  must  have  considered  the  question  of  the 
genuineness  of  the  Gospels  as  one  of  great  importance.  If 
a  book  be  offered  to  us  as  of  the  highest  authority,  there  is 
no  man  who  will  not  a>k  what  claim  it  has  to  this  authority, 
and  upon  what  proofs  its  claim  is  founded.  There  was  every 
thing  in  the  circumstances  of  the  early  Christians  to  give 
strength  to  this  desire  for  information  and  evidence.  In 
embracing  a  new  religion,  they  must  have  felt  the  strongest 
interest  concerning  all  that  related  to  its  character  and  history. 
This  religion  did  not  then,  as  it  does  at  the  present  day,  con- 
stitute the  prevailing  faith,  nor  blend  itself  with  the  opinions, 
belief,  sentiments,  and  customs  of  the  age.  It  stood  in  oppo- 
sition to  all  that  was  established.  Every  thing  connected  with 
it  was  rendered  prominent  and  striking  by  the  contrast,  and 


*  Irenaei  Epist.  ad  Florin.,  apud  Euseb.  H.  E.,  lib.  v.  c.  20 ;  Contra  Hceres., 
lib.  iii.  c.  3,  §  4,  p.  176. 


88  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

became  a  subject  of  earnest  attention,  an  object  of  attack 
and  defence.  Tlie  early  Christians  were  separated  from  other 
men.  Their  reb'gion  snapt  asunder  the  ties  of  common  inter- 
course. It  called  them  to  a  new  life  ;  it  gave  them  new  senti- 
ments, hopes,  and  desires,  —  a  new  character;  it  demanded 
of  them  such  a  conscientious  and  steady  performance  of  duty 
as  had  hnrdly  before  been  conceived  of;  it  subjected  them  to 
privations  and  insults,  to  uncertainty  and  danger;  it  required 
them  to  prepare  for  torments  and  death.  Every  day  of  their 
lives,  they  were  strongly  reminded  of  it,  by  the  duties  which 
it  enforced,  and  the  sacrifices  which  it  cost  them.  Their 
external  circumstances,  and  their  connections  with  this  world, 
instead  of  distracting  their  thoughts  from  it,  as  is  the  common 
tendency  of  our  relations  to  the  present  life,  kept  it  constantly 
pressed  upon  their  attention.  In  this  state  of  things,  it  can- 
not be  supposed  that  they  were  indifferent  about  the  genuine- 
ness of  those  records  on  which  their  faith  rested.  They  must 
have  felt,  at  least  as  strongly  as  we  do,  the  fundamental 
importance  of  the  subject.  But  respecting  the  history  and 
genuineness  of  those  records,  if  what  has  boen  stated  be  cor- 
rect, they  could  not  have  been  ignorant  if  they  would. 

In  estimating  the  value  of  the  testimony  of  the  Christian 
community  during  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century,  it  is 
well  to  consider  the  intellectual  and  moral  character  of  those 
of  whom  it  was  composed. 

Our  religion,  at  the  time  to  which  we  refer,  was  not  so 
corrupted  as  greatly  to  weaken  its  power  over  the  affections 
and  moral  principles  of  those  by  whom  it  was  held ;  and  there 
is  no  doubt,  that  the  Christians  of  the  second  and  third  centu- 
ries were,  as  a  body,  distinguished  from  the  world  around 
them  by  their  moral  superiority,  and  by  virtues  which  scarcely 
existed  beyond  the  limits  of  their  community.  They  were 
not,  as  some  have  pretended,  an  illiterate  people.  They  had 
among  them  a  full  share,  to  say  the  least,  of  the  learning  and 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  89 

intellectual  improvement  of  the  age.  From  the  midJle  of  the 
second  century,  they  abounded  in  writers,  many  of  whose 
works  are  lost;  but  many  which  remain  give  proof  of  more 
than  common  learning  and  vigor  of  intellect.  There  is  a 
tendency  to  speak  of  the  Christian  fathers  with  a  disrespect 
wholly  unmerited  by  those  of  the  first  ages.  During  the 
latter  part  of  the  second  and  the  first  half  of  the  third  cen- 
tury,—  that  is,  from  the  time  when  Irenceus  wrote  till  that  of 
Origen's  death,  —  though  the  Christians  were  much  fewer  in 
number  than  the  heathens,  yet  the  Christian  writers,  as  a 
body,*"  have  far  higher  claims  to  intellectual  distinction  than 
the  heathen.  After  the  period  last  mentioned,  as  Christians 
increased  in  number,  their  intellectual  ascendency,  of  course, 
became  more  conspicuous,  and,  at  the  same  time,  less  extraor- 
dinary. 

By  a  community  of  this  character,  in  the  last  quarter 
of  the  second  century,  the  Gospels  were  received  as  genuine. 
There  was  no  controversy  nor  difference  of  opinion  on  the 
subject  within  its  limits. 

But,  in  addition  to  w^hat  has  been  said,  it  happens  that  we 
are  able  to  produce  a  striking  confirmation  of  the  testimony 
of  the  early  Christians  to  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  by 
ascertaining,  with  a  high  degree  of  probability,  the  correct- 
ness of  this  testimony  in  regard  to  other  books  of  the  Chris- 
tian Scriptures,  from  a  distinct  source  of  evidence.  It  is  well 
known,  that  all  our  present  books  of  the  New  Testament  were 
not,  during  the  first  ages,  received  as  of  equal  authority. 
Some  were  universally  acknowledged  as  belonging  to  the 
class  of  sacred  books,  while  others  were  not ;  the  genuineness 
or  the  value  of  the  latter  being  doubted  or  denied  by  a  greater 
or  less  portion  of  the  Christian  community.  The  books  uni- 
versally received  as  genuine  and  sacred  were  the  following, 
twenty  in  number :  The  four  Gospels,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles, 
the  thirteen  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  (exclusive  of  the  Epistle  to 


90  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

the  Hebrews),  the  first  Epistle  of  John,  and  the  first  of  Peter. 
For  tlie  genuineness  of  more  tlian  half  of  this  number,  we 
have  evidence  of  a  peculiar  kind.  It  is  that  which  is  so  ably 
stated  by  Paley,  in  his  "  Horce  Paulinas,"  arising  from  the 
undesigned  coincidences  which  appear  upon  comparing  to- 
gether the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  the  Epistles  of  St. 
Paul.*"  In  respect  to  the  Acts,  and  most  of  the  Epistles  of 
St.  Paul,  this  species  of  evidence,  in  connection  with  all  the 
other  proof,  internal  and  external,  which  bears  upon  the  same 
point,  is  abundantly  sufhcient  to  put  the  question  to  rest. 
The  genuineness  of  three  of  his  Epistles,  it  is  ti'ue,  —  th«se  to 
Timothy  and  Titus,  —  has  been  attacked  by  some  of  the  Ger- 
man theologians.  But,  putting  these  aside  for  the  present, 
there  are  ten  P^pistles  of  St.  Paul,  and  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  the  genuineness  of  which  we  may  consider  as  es- 
tablished. Out  of  twenty  books  which  the  early  Christians 
have  transmitted  to  us  as  unquestionably  genuine,  there  are 

*  This  statement,  so  far  as  it  respects  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  requires  a 
few  words  of  explanation. 

I'aley's  argument  goes  directly  to  prove  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistles 
of  Paul ;  for  they  assume  to  be  his  compositions.  But  it  does  not  go  directly 
to  prove  the  genuineness  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles;  for  this  book  does  not 
assume  to  be  the  Avork  of  Luke,  whose  name  is  not  mentioned  in  it. 

But  Paley's  argument  proves  the  truth  of  the  history  contained  in  this 
book.  And  the  book,  it  appears  from  the  frequent  use  in  it  of  the  first  person 
plural,  was  written  by  a  companion  of  St.  Paul. 

Such  being  the  case,  the  book  being  authentic,  and  being  written  by  a 
companion  of  St.  Paul,  there  is  no  supposable  mistake,  which  might  have  led 
the  early  Christians  to  ascribe  it  to  any  other  than  its  true  author.  And  they 
unanimously  ascribed  it  to  Luke.  Througliout  the  whole  of  antiquity,  there 
is  no  suggestion  of  any  other  author,  nor  an  intimation  of  doubt  that  Luke  was 
the  author. 

In  confirmation  of  this  reasoning,  if  it  need  confirmation,  we  find  Luke 
repeatedly  mentioned  by  St.  Paul  as  his  companion  and  friend.  He  calls 
him  (Coloss.  iv.  14),  "Luke,  the  beloved  physician."  He  sends  to  Philemon 
(ver.  24)  a  salutation  from  him  as  one  of  his  ''fellow-laborers,"  And  in  his 
last  Epistle  to  Timothy,  written  just  before  his  martyrdom,  speaking  v.f  being 
deserted  by  one  and  left  by  others,  he  says  (iv.  11),  ''Luke  alone  is  with 
me."' 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  91 

eleven  which  are  imqnestionably  genuine.  There  are  eleven, 
for  the  genuineness  of  which  we  have  strong  proof,  of  a  kind 
wholly  distinct  from  their  testimony.  "VVe  have  a  peculiar 
means  of  testing  the  value  of  our  witnesses,  in  regard  to  a 
most  important  part  of  their  evidence ;  and  by  this  test  their 
correctness  is  fully  established.  But  the  greater  the  number 
of  UajIvS  the  genuineness  of  which  is  admitted,  by  whatever 
means  this  be  proved,  the  greater  the  presumption  that  the 
testimony  of  the  early  Christians  may  be  relied  upon  ;  or,  in 
other  words,  that  all  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  which 
they  received  as  unquestionably  genuine  are  in  fact  genuine. 
This  proposition  being  granted,  I  think  that  he  who  will 
examine  the  subject  may  fully  satisfy  himself  that  the  Epis- 
tles to  Timothy  and  Titus  were  written  by  St.  Paul.  I 
think  he  wall  find  no  reason  to  doubt,  that  the  two  catholic 
Epistles  before  mentioned — the  first  of  John  and  the  first 
of  Peter  —  were  the  works  of  the  apostles  to  whom  they 
are  ascribed.  With  regard  to  them,  there  is,  to  say  the 
least,  nothing  to  detract  from  the  credit  due  to  the  authority 
of  the  early  Christians.  But  if  he  should  come  to  the  con- 
clusion, that  all  these  books,  wdth  those  before  mentioned, 
are  genuine ;  that  sixteen  out  of  the  tw^enty  received  by  the 
early  Christians  are  genuine,  —  he  can  hardly  refuse  to 
admit,  that  there  is  a  very  strong  presumption  in  favor  of 
the  genuineness  of  the  remaining  four ;  these  four,  the  Gos- 
pels, being  the  most  important  of  all. 


We  have  hitherto  considered  the  subject  as  if  the  early 
Christians,  whose  testimony  has  been  adduced,  might  have 
had  a  firm  belief  of  the  truth  of  their  religion,  unconnected 
with  a  belief  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels.  There  is 
nothing  in  the  nature  of  things  to  render  this  supposition 
incredible.     But  it  is  a  fact  deserving  particular  attention, 


92  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

that  the  one  belief  was,  in  their  minds,  identified  with  the 
other.  Their  faith  in  Christianity  was  an  assurance  of 
the  truth  of  the  accounts  respecting  Christ  recorded  by  the 
four  evangelists.  It  was  a  belief,  that  he  was  such  as  he 
was  represented  to  be  by  them ;  and  that  he  taught  the 
truths,  and  inculcated  the  precepts,  preserved  in  their  writ- 
ings. What  was  to  be  learnt  from  the  four  Gospels  was  the 
object  of  a  Christian's  faith ;  and  no  other  source  of  instruc- 
tion came  in  competition  with  them.  They  were,  as  Irenasus 
expresses  it,  "  the  pillar  and  support  of  the  Church.'*  They 
were,  in  the  view  of  the  Christians  of  his  age,  the  Gospel, 
transmitted  in  writing,  through  the  appointment  of  God,  by 
those  who  had  been  commissioned  to  preach  it.*  '  To  be  a 
Christian,  then,  was  to  believe  what  was  recorded  in  the 
Gospels ;  or,  in  other  words,  it  was  to  believe  the  credibility 
of  these  books.  But  these  books  w^ere  believed  to  be  credi- 
ble, because  they  were  believed  to  be  genuine;  to  be  the 
works  of  eye-witnesses,  or  of  those  who  derived  their  informa- 
tion from  eye-witnesses ;  histories,  all  of  which  had  apostolic 
authority,  because  they  were  written  by  apostles,  or  sanc- 
tioned by  apostles.  Supposing  any  doubt  to  have  been  cast 
upon  their  genuineness,  the  same  doubt  would  have  extended 
to  their  credibility.  If  they  did  not  appear  till  after  the 
apostolic  age,  a  false  character  had  been  ascribed  to  them ; 
and  their  whole  contents  would,  in  consequence,  become  sus- 
picious. Every  attestation,  therefore,  given  by  a  Christian 
of  his  belief  in  his  religion,  was  an  attestation  of  his  belief 
in  the  credibility  and  the  genuineness  of  the  four  Gospels. 
It  was  in  consequence  and  in  testimony  of  this  belief,  that  he 
lived  as  a  Christian,  and  was  prepared  to  die  as  a  martyr. 
But  his  belief  in  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels  was  a  belief 
of  an  historical  fact.  It  did  not  regard  a  matter  of  opinion 
or  interpretation.     At  the  same  time,  it  lay  at  the  foundation 

*  See  before,  p.  72. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         93 

of  his  religious  faith.  It  was  the  first  point  to  be  settled  in 
becoming  a  believer.  The  conversion,  the  virtues,  and  the 
sufferings  of  the  early  Christians,  all,  therefore,  bear  testi- 
mony to  their  firm  belief  of  this  fixct ;  it  was  a  fact  respect- 
ing which  they  had  the  strongest  interest  in  not  being 
deceived;  and  such,  as  we  have  seen,  was  the  information 
necessarily  possessed  by  them,  that,  in  the  exercise  of  com- 
mon good  sense,  they  could  not  be  in  error. 


But  even  putting  out  of  view  those  considerations  which 
have  been  brought  forward  to  explain  the  value  of  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Christian  community,  during  the  last  quarter  of 
the  second  century,  to  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  it  may 
be  shown,  that  the  general  reception  of  these  books  during 
the  period  in  question  is  to  be  accounted  for  only  by  ad- 
mitting their  genuineness. 

Before  attending  to  those  considerations  which  may  show 
the  truth  of  this  proposition  in  regard  to  the  Gospels  gener- 
ally, we  will  advert  to  some  circumstances  which  respect  only 
the  first  three.  These,  when  compared  together,  present 
phenomena,  of  which,  if  their  genuineness  be  denied,  no 
solution  can  be  given,  not  irreconcilable  with  the  fact  of  the 
reception  of  all  three  as  books  of  the  highest  authority. 
The  phenomena  referred  to  consist  in  the  frequent  instances 
of  verbal  agreement  among  them,  and  in  their  correspondence 
with  one  another  in  the  selection  and  narration  of  the  same 
events,  viewed  in  connection  with  their  disagreements  and 
individual  peculiarities.  The  common  reception  of  the  first 
three  Gospels,  and  the  appearances  which  these  writings 
present,  must  be  regarded  together.  When  thus  regarded, 
they  prove  the  genuineness  of  the  books  in  question ;  because, 
upon  the  opposite  supposition,  no  explanation  can  be  given 


94  EVIDENCES    OF   THE 

of  these  appearances  not  inconsistent  with  the  fact  of  their 
common  reception.  This  is  the  point  to  which  we  will  now 
attend. 

If  it  be  maintained  that  the  first  three  Gospels  are  the 
compositions  of  writers  who  lived  after  the  apostolic  age, 
then,  at  first  view,  three  suppositions  may  present  themselves 
as  affording  a  solution  of  the  phenomena  which  have  been 
mentioned.  One  writer  may  have  copied  from  another,  o' 
from  both  of  the  others ;  or  each  writer  may  have  made  use 
of  some  written  document  or  documents  which  had  much  in 
common  with  those  used  by  the  other  two,  though  in  many 
respects  dissimilar;  or  they  may  all  have  derived  their 
accounts  from  tradition,  the  traditions  preserved  by  one 
being  partly  the  same  with  those  preserved  by  another,  and 
partly  different.  We  will  examine  in  order  each  of  these 
solutions. 

I.  The  supposition  that  the  author  of  any  one  of  the  first 
three  Gospels  copied  from  either  of  the  others,  has,  in  mod- 
ern times,  been  subjected  to  very  thorough  examination.  It 
has  been  found  exposed  to  great,  and,  as  may  seem,  insu- 
perable objections,  which  show  themselves  on  comparing 
together  the  contents  of  the  first  three  Gospels.  Some  of 
these  objections  are  stated  in  another  place.*  But,  under 
the  conditions  of  the  case  now  before  us, — that  is,  in  con- 
nection with  the  belief  that  the  Gospels  were  written  after 
the  apostolic  age,  —  the  supposition  is  liable  to  peculiar  objec- 
tions, which  alone  it  is  necessary  to  consider  at  present. 

I'hese  objections  may  be  shown  by  applying  them  to  a 
particular  instance;  it  being  kept  in  mind  that  they  are 
applicable  to  any  other  which  may  be  presented.  Let  us 
suppose,  then,  that  the  author  of  the  Gospel  ascribed  to  Luke 
made  use  of  that  ascribed  to  Matthew,  and  derived  from  it 

♦  See  Note  B,  pp.  463-510. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  95 

the  large  portion  of  matter  which  his  history  has  in  common 
with  it.  The  question  then  arises,  What  was  his  purpose  in 
composing  his  own  work?  He  must  have  intended  to  give  a 
better,  a  more  authentic,  or  a  more  phiusible  history  tiian 
that  ascribed  to  ]\Iattlu;w,  —  one  which  might  more  effectu- 
ally serve  the  end  proposed  in  such  a  work,  whatever  that 
were.  It  must  have  been  his  purpose  to  remodel  the  gospel 
before  existing  ;  to  arrange  its  contents  in  suitable  order  ;  and 
to  omit,  correct,  and  add,  according  to  his  superior  informa- 
tion, skill,  and  judgment.  The  general  character  of  both 
histories  is  strikingly  the  same;  they  correspond  with  each 
other  in  the  greater  part  of  their  contents ;  and,  if  the  writer 
of  that  ascribed  to  Luke  took  that  ascribed  to  Matthew  for 
the  basis  of  his  own  work,  all  change,  addition,  or  omission 
must  appear  to  be  intentional  correction  or  improvement. 
The  former  v/ork  must  have  been  a  refashioning  of  the  latter, 
with  the  purpose  of  removing  its  errors,  and  supplying  its 
deficiencies.  The  object  of  the  author  of  the  new  history, 
therefore,  was  to  produce  a  work  which  ought  to  supersede 
the  old.  But  this  is  inconsistent  with  the  fact,  that  those  who 
received  his  Gospel  as  authentic  received  also  that  ascribed 
to  JMatthew  as  of  equal  authority ;  and  those  who  reverenced 
that  ascribed  to  Matthew  made  no  hesitation  in  admitting  that 
ascribed  to  Luke  as  also  entitled  to  the  rank  of  a  saci  \d 
book.  If  the  writer  of  the  gospel  ascribed  to  Luke  intend. d 
to  give  a  better  or  more  serviceable  history  than  that  as- 
cribed to  Matthew,  he  would  have  been  considered  either  as 
having  succeeded  or  as  having  failed.  In  comparison  with 
the  latter  work,  his  own  must  either  have  been  preferred  or 
rejected.  If  we  imagine  that,  when  he  wrote,  the  gospel 
afterwards  ascribed  to  Matthew  was  already  regarded  as  the 
composition  of  that  apostle,  little  favor  would  have  been 
shown  to  the  author  of  a  pretended  revision  of  such  a 
work,  and  his  book  would  have  obtained  little  currency.  If, 
at  the  time  when  he  wrote,  the  gospel  afterwards  ascribed  to 


96  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

Matthew  were  regarded  as  having  no  claim  to  higher  author- 
ity than  his  own  might  pretend  to,  then  the  two  histories 
would  have  come  in  competition,  and  it  cannot  be  supposed 
that  both  would  have  been  received  as  of  equal  authority  and 
worth. 

Supposing  the  first  three  Gospels  to  have  been  composed 
after  the  apostolic  age,  or,  in  other  words,  if  their  genuine- 
ness be  denied,  it  is  obvious  that  similar  arguments  may  be 
brought  to  prove  that  the  author  of  no  one  of  them  made 
use  of  either  of  the  other  two,  in  such  a  manner  as  to  explain 
the  correspondence  between  their  writings.  The  use  sup- 
posed is  inconsistent  with  the  fact  of  the  common  reception 
of  all  of  them  as  sacred  books  of  the  highest  authority. 

11.  We  will,  then,  examine  the  next  solution  which  has 
been  mentioned.  It  may  be  said,  that  the  authors  of  the  first 
three  Gospels  each  made  use  of  a  written  document  or  docu- 
ments; and  that  the  documents  respectively  used  by  them 
had  much  common  and  corresponding  matter,  and  much 
verbal  agreement,  but  that  they  were  distinguished  from  one 
another  by  many  individual  peculiarities. 

In  respect  to  this  supposition,  let  us  consider  of  what 
character  those  documents  must  have  been.  They  were  not 
separate  narratives  of  single  events,  real  or  supposed,  in  the 
life  of  Christ.  It  cannot  be  believed,  that,  after  the  apostolic 
age,  the  history  contained  in  the  first  three  Gospels  was, 
before  their  composition,  circulating  among  Christians  in 
many  separate  written  fragments.  AVhoever  was  desirous 
of  obtaining  one  written  account  of  an  event,  or  supposed 
event,  in  the  life  of  Christ,  would  be  desirous  of  obtaining 
more.  He  would  extend  his  collection,  and  arrange  it,  if  he 
did  not  find  a  collection  arranged  to  his  hands.  The  coinci- 
dence between  the  Gospels  ascribed  to  Mark  and  Luke  in  the 
order  of  the  events  which  they  have  in  common  shows  that 
the  authors  of  these  Gospels,  if  they  followed  written  docu- 


GENUINENESS    OF   THE   GOSPELS.  97 

ments,  must  have  copied  documents  in  which  the  events  were 
already  thus  arranged.  The  writer  of  tlie  Gospel  ascribed 
to  Luke  says,  that  many  before  him  had  undertaken  to 
prepare  accounts  of  Christ ;  and,  whether  we  do  or  do  not 
believe  the  Gospel  to  be  the  work  of  Luke,  there  can  be  no 
reason  for  doubting  the  truth  of  this  information. 

The  documents  in  question,  then,  must  have  been  different 
histories  of  Christ,  different  gospels,  in  existence  before  our 
first  three  Gospels.  Such  writings,  when  once  in  existence, 
would  soon  be  widely  circulated.  Now,  upon  the  supposition 
that  the  first  three  Gospels  were  composed  after  the  apostolic 
age  out  of  such  documents,  each  of  them  was  nothing  more 
than  a  particular  compilation  of  the  same  kind  with  those 
alreatiy  existing,  made  by  some  unknown  individual,  who 
has  left  no  trace  of  his  history.  Each  of  these  new  collec- 
tions, likewise,  was  incomplete;  for  each  of  the  first  three 
Gospels  wants  much  that  is  found  in  the  other  two,  and  in 
the  Gospel  of  John,  —  to  say  nothing  of  what  may  have  ex- 
isted in  any  of  the  supposed  earlier  gospels.  There  are  dis- 
crepancies between  them,  and  they  present  very  considerable 
difficulties  when  compared  together.  There  could  be  no  rea- 
son, therefore,  why  any  individual,  who  had  possessed  a  more 
ancient  collection,  should  reject  that  to  which  he  had  been 
accustomed,  in  order  to  substitute  these  three,  or  one  of  these 
three,  in  its  place.  There  was  nothing  to  give  these  new 
compilations  any  peculiar  sanctity  or  authority ;  or  to  secure 
them,  any  more  than  other  collections  of  the  same  kind,  from 
additions  and  changes.  No  reason  can  be  assigned  why  any 
one  of  them,  and  still  less  why  all  three  equally,  should  have 
obtained  such  celebrity  and  general  reception,  a  character  so 
exclusively  sacred,  as  to  cause  all  similar  compilations  to  dis- 
appear. The  proprietor  of  a  different  collection,  if  he  chanced 
to  meet  with  one  of  these,  might  note  what  he  found  in  it, 
not  contained  in  his  own ;  and,  if  he  thought  the  relation 
worthy  of  being  preserved,  he  might  insert  it  in  the  margin 

7 


98  EVIDENCES    OF   THE 

of  his  old  manuscript,  or  in  the  text  of  a  new  one.  But  there 
was  no  reason  why  he  should  reject  what  he  had  before  re- 
garded as  a  credible  narrative,  because  he  did  not  find  it  in 
one  of  these  compilations.  Because  three  unknown  indi- 
viduals had  made  three  new  compilations,  not  differing  in 
their  general  character  from  such  as  had  existed  before,  all 
other  manuscripts  of  a  similar  kind  would  not  be  destroyed. 
Copies  of  various  manuscripts  would  continue  to  be  multi- 
plied, containing,  probably,  new  additions ;  till  at  the  end  of 
the  second  century,  instead  of  finding  Christians  agreed  in 
the  use  of  the  four  Gospels,  we  should  have  found  as  many 
different  gospels  as  there  had  chanced  to  be  different  col- 
lectors. Under  the  circumstances  supposed,  no  authority, 
generally  acknowledged,  could  have  belonged  to  any  pdl'ticu- 
lar  compilation. 

in.  We  will  now  attend  to  the  third  supposition  men- 
tioned, —  that  the  correspondence  between  the  first  three  Gos- 
pels, supposing  them  to  have  been  written  after  the  apostolic 
age,  is  to  be  accounted  for  by  the  circumstance,  that  they 
were  all  founded  upon  oral  traditionary  narratives,  in  great 
part  similar  or  the  same.  To  this,  the  answer  is,  that  an 
oral  traditionary  history  of  Christ  would  have  varied  more 
in  its  form  as  preserved  by  three  different  writers.  It  would 
have  become  adulterated  in  different  and  opposite  ways, 
probably  grossly  adulterated,  through  the  various  opinions, 
conceptions,  errors,  and  passions  of  the  times  following  the 
apostolic  age.  A  large  portion  of  the  accounts  concerning 
Christ  would  have  been  imperfectly  comprehended  by  many, 
probably  by  most  Christians ;  and,  in  repeating  such  ac- 
counts, they  would  have  conformed  them  to  their  own  appre- 
hensions, and  not  to  the  truth.  No  narratives  are  so  exposed 
to  change  and  corruption  by  oral  transmission,  as  those  which 
relate  to  supernatural  events,  real  or  supposed.  The  forgeries 
of  an  excited  imagination  become  more  and  more  mingled 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         99 

with  the  history,  as  it  passes  from  mouth  to  mouth.  Oral 
traditionary  relations  concerning  the  Founder  of  Christianity, 
preserved  by  Christians  after  the  apostolic  age,  must  have 
received  a  different  moulding  and  coloring  from  many  differ- 
ent hands.  Had  the  first  three  Gospels  been  founded  upon 
such  relations,  they  would  not  have  been  so  consistent  with 
each  other  as  they  now  are,  in  presenting  the  same  view  of 
the  most  remarkable  character  of  Christ,  of  the  events  of  his 
life,  of  his  words  and  deeds,  and  of  the  purpose  of  his  minis- 
try. They  would  not  have  had  the  striking  resemblance  to 
each  other  which  they  now  possess,  in  their  general  com- 
plexion. Nor  would  there  have  been  the  remarkable  cor- 
respondence which  now  exists  among  them  in  many  of  their 
relations,  in  which  we  find  the  same  facts,  conceptions,  and 
language. 

In  estimating  the  force  of  these  remarks,  we  must  attend 
particularly  to  the  circumstance,  that  the  traditionary  ac- 
counts supposed  could  not  have  assumed  a  well-defined  and 
authorized  form,  by  being  embodied  into  one  long,  oral  nar- 
rative, generally  taught  and  received.  They  must  have  ex- 
isted in  a  fluctuating  and  unconnected  state ;  for  many  things 
are  related  diflTerently  in  the  first  three  Gospels:  each  of 
them  has  matter,  and  two  of  them,  respectively,  much  mat- 
ter, which  is  not  found  in  either  of  the  others;  and  the 
arrangement  of  Mark  and  Luke  differs  from  that  of  Mat- 
thew. Let  us  suppose  that  the  history  and  discourses  of 
Socrates  had  been  preserved  by  oral  tradition,  —  a  tradition, 
however,  not  spread  over  the  world,  but  confined  to  the  city 
of  Athens;  and  that,  some  half-century  or  more  after  his 
death,  they  had  been  first  committed  to  writing  by  three 
different  individuals.  The  improbability  that  their  three 
works  would  have  resembled  each  other  as  much  as  the  first 
three  Gospels,  partially  expresses  the  improbability,  that 
these  Gospels,  being  written  after  the  apostolic  age,  were 
founded  upon  oral  tradition. 


100  EVIDENCES    OF   THE 

The  argument  which  it  has  been  my  object  to  illustrate 
may  be  stated  briefly  in  the  following  manner.  There  are 
many  correspondences  between  any  two  of  the  first  three 
Gospels,  so  remarkable,  that,  in  each  particular  case,  they 
admit  only  of  one  of  the  following  explanations :  either  one 
writer  copied  the  other,  or  each  writer  followed  some  au- 
thority common  to  both,  which  authority  must  have  been 
either  written  or  oral.  But  either  of  these  solutions,  to 
which  we  are  reduced  by  the  nature  of  the  case,  becomes 
too  improbable  to  be  admitted,  if  we  suppose  those  Gospels 
to  have  been  written  after  the  apostolic  age."^ 

It  is,  then,  a  curious  and  important  circumstance,  that  in 
the  very  structure  of  the  first  three  Gospels,  when  compared 
together,  taken  in  connection  with  the  fact  of  their  common 
reception  and  high  and  peculiar  authority  among  Christians 
before  the  close  of  the  second  century,  we  find  evidence  that 
they  must  have  been  composed  during  the  apostolic  age. 
Upon  a  contrary  supposition,  we  have  seen  that  no  solution 
can  be  given  of  the  remarkable  phenomena  presented  by 
them,  which  is  in  itself  probable,  and  at  the  same  time 
consistent  with  the  fact  of  their  common  reception.  But,  if 
written  in  the  apostolic  age,  they  must  have  been  handed 
down  from  that  period  with  such  a  character  as  gave  them 
the  authority  which  they  afterwards  possessed ;  and  no  rea- 
sonable doubt  can  remain  of  their  genuineness.  They  were 
works  which  had  received  the  sanction  of  that  age ;  their 
authors  were  then,  undoubtedly,  known ;  and  they  were  un- 
doubtedly ascribed  to  their  true  authors. 


We  will  now  regard  the  four  Gospels  in  common.  Their 
general  reception  as  genuine  and  sacred  books,  during  the 

*  On  the  manner  in  which  the  phenomena  presented  by  the  first  threo 
Gospels,  when  compared  together,  ma}'  be  explained  on  the  supposition  of 
their  genuineness,  see  Note  B,  pp.  510-544. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        101 

last  quarter  of  the  second  century,  can  be  accounted  for  only 
by  admitting  their  genuineness. 

Let  us  first  view  the  subject  in  its  simplest  form.  If  the 
Gospels  be  not  genuine,  how  was  it  possible  for  any  one  of 
them  to  obtain  general  reception  and  authority,  as  the  work 
of  the  author  to  whom  it  was  ascribed?  This  could  not 
have  taken  place  during  the  age  of  the  apostles,  while  the 
reputed  author  or  his  friends  were  still  living.  After  the 
death,  therefore,  of  the  reputed  author,  and  of  most  of  those 
acquainted  with  him,  we  must  suppose  that  a  claim  was  first 
set  up  for  a  certain  book,  falsely  asserting  it  to  be  the  work 
of  St.  Matthew  or  St.  John,  or  one  of  the  other  evangelists. 
The  claim  had  not  before  been  heard  of.  The  evidence 
which  the  case  demanded  to  satisfy  any  reasonable  man  — 
that  is,  the  belief  and  testimony  of  the  preceding  age  —  was 
wanting.  It  must  have  been  evident,  therefore,  that  the 
claim  was  without  foundation.  An  attempted  fraud  of  this 
kind  in  relation  to  books  of  such  general  interest,  and  pre- 
tending to  such  high  authority,  could  not,  from  its  very 
nature,  have  been  successful.  It  could  not  have  produced 
belief;  and  it  would  be  an  hypothesis  against  which  it  is 
unnecessary  to  bring  arguments,  to  suppose  it  to  have  pro- 
duced, throughout  the  widely  dispersed  Christian  community, 
a  general  profession  of  belief  in  what  every  one  must  have 
known,  or  at  least  strongly  suspected,  to  be  a  falsehood. 

Possibly,  however,  the  suggestion  may  still  be  made,  that 
the  reception  of  the  Gospels,  as  the  works  of  those  to  whom 
they  are  ascribed,  was  produced  by  a  general  concert  and 
combination  among  Christians,  under  the  direction  of  those 
of  most  eminence  and  authority.  Enough  has  been  already 
Baid  to  show,  that  the  effect  in  question  could  not  have  been 
the  result  of  such  a  combination.*     But  let  us  again  con* 

*  See  before,  p.  24,  seqq. 


102  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

Bider,  that  the  supposition  implies  great  dishonesty  in  the 
deceivers,  and  gross  ignorance  and  credulity  in  the  de- 
ceived ;  and  that  no  part  of  the  Christian  community  will  be 
exempt  from  one  or  the  other  of  these  charges.  But  none 
would  venture  explicitly  to  maintain,  that  the  character  of 
the  early  Christians  was  such  as  to  render  it  probable  that 
one  portion  of  them  was  so  fraudulent  as  to  impose  upon 
their  brethren,  for  a  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  certain  books, 
as  genuine,  which  they  knew  were  not  genuine ;  and  that 
the  larger  portion  was  so  weak  as  to  submit  quietly  to  the 
imposition. 

It  is  a  strong  subsidiary  argument,  if  such  be  needed, 
against  the  supposition  of  a  fraudulent  or  arbitrary  assign- 
ment of  the  names  of  the  authors  of  the  Gospels,  that  only 
two  of  them  are  ascribed  to  apostles ;  and  one  of  these  two 
is  ascribed  to  an  apostle  not  distinguished,  except  as  the 
author  of  the  work  in  question.  If  the  assignment  had  been 
arbitrary,  names  of  more  distinction  would  have  been  chosen. 
The  early  fathers,  as  is  well  known,  were  solicitous  to  prove, 
that  the  Gospels  of  Mark  and  Luke,  though  not  written  by 
apostles,  were  entitled  to  apostolical  authority,  on  the  ground 
that  the  former  only  embodied  those  narratives  which  St. 
Peter  had  delivered  orally,  and  that  the  latter  had  received 
the  sanction  of  St.  Paul.  Upon  the  supposition  that  these 
writings  were  as  little  the  work  of  the  supposed  evangelists 
as  of  the  apostles,  the  names  of  the  latter  would  have  been 
given  them  at  once. 


But  there  are  other  considerations  to  which  we  will  now 
attend.  It  is  to  be  particularly  remarked,  that  we  have  not 
one  only,  but  four  books,  each  professing  to  give  a  history 
of  Jesus  Christ.  These  books,  though  consistent  with  each 
other  in  their  representations  of  his  most  remarkable  charac- 
ter ;  though  they  agree  in  giving  the  same  view  of  his  doc- 


GENUINENESS   OF    THE   GOSPELS.  103 

trines,  and  of  the  purpose  of  his  ministry ;  and  though  they 
have  many  facts  and  discourses  common  to  two  or  more  of 
their  number,  —  yet  differ  nnich  from  each  other  in  the  selec- 
tion, arrangement,  and  connection  of  events,  and  in  their 
accounts  of  some  particuhir  focts  and  transactions.  Their 
discrepancies  are  such  as  could  not  escape  observation.  In 
the  first  half  of  the  third  century,  the  importance  of  them 
was  magnified  by  Origen  in  the  language  of  extravagant 
exaggeration.  He  adopted,  and  carried  to  its  greatest  length, 
the  allegorical  mode  of  interpreting  the  Scriptures ;  and 
thoufjht  that  there  was  no  means  of  savincr  the  credit  of 
the  Gospels,  but  by  recurring  to  the  hidden  sense  of  their 
words.  In  one  place,  after  remarking  upon  an  apparent 
disagreement  between  the  first  three  evangelists  and  St. 
John,  he  says  :  "  And  in  regard  to  many  other  passages,  —  if 
one  carefully  examine  the  Gospels,  with  a  view  to  the  dis- 
sonances in  their  history,  which  severally  we  shall  endeavor 
to  set  forth  according  to  our  ability,  he  will,  being  wholly 
bewildered,  either  refuse  to  acknowledge,  conformably  to 
truth,  the  authority  of  the  Gospels,  and,  making  a  selection, 
will  adhere  to  one  alone,  not  willing  wholly  to  give  up  the 
faith  concerning  our  Lord ;  or,  receiving  the  four,  will  deter- 
mine that  the  truth  is  not  in  their  literal  meaning."  * 

Now,  if  we  admit  that  the  Gospels  were  written  by  the 
authors  to  whom  they  are  ascribed,  the  general  reception  of 
all  four  as  of  equal  authority,  notwithstanding  these  dis- 
crepancies, is  at  once  accounted  for.  But,  supposing  them 
not  to  be  genuine,  no  probable  explanation  can  be  given  of 
this  fact.  Allowing  that  each  of  the  four  Gospels  might,  in 
some  way  or  other,  have  obtained  a  certain  degree  of  credit, 
yet  one  would  have  been  used  by  one  portion  of  Christians, 
and  another  by  another,  according  as  the  place  of  its  com- 
position, or   some  other  particular  circumstance,  favored  its 

*  Comment,  in  Joan.,  torn.  x.  §  2 ;  0pp.  iv.  163. 


104  EVIDENCES  OF   THE 

reception.  There  would  have  been  as  many  different  parties 
among  Christians  as  there  were  different  Gospels ;  each  party- 
maintaining  the  superior  authority  of  its  own  Gospel.  Be- 
side these,  there  would  probably  have  been  another  large 
party,  which  would  not  have  admitted  the  authority,  or  at 
least  the  genuineness,  of  any  one  of  our  present  Gospels. 
They  who  had  received,  and  had  been  accustomed  to  use,  a 
particular  Gospel,  would  lopk  with  suspicion  upon  another, 
which  was  presented  as  its  rival.  However  credulously  they 
had  admitted  the  claims  of  their  own  history,  they  would 
examine  with  jealousy  those  of  a  new  work.  This  would 
especially  be  the  case,  if  the  latter  appeared  in  any  respects, 
though  but  of  little  importance,  to  be  inconsistent  with,  or 
contradictory  to,  the  former.  But  obvious  discrepancies  ex- 
ist among  the  Gospels,  the  importance  of  which  would  be 
magnified  by  those  who,  having  been  accustomed  to  use  and 
reverence  one  of  these  books,  were  urged  to  receive  another 
as  its  companion,  and  to  regard  it  as  of  equal  credit.  These 
discrepancies,  apparent  or  real,  must  therefore  have  greatly 
aggravated  the  difficulty  of  mtroducing  any  other  Gospel 
among  those  by  whom  one  of  the  Gospels  had  been  already 
received. 

Let  us,  for  instance,  suppose  the  Gospel  ascribed  to  Luke 
to  have  been  presented  for  the  first  time  to  Christians  who 
had  been  accustomed  to  use  only  that  ascribed  to  Matthew. 
Upon  first  opening  the  former,  they  would  have  been  shocked 
at  finding  a  genealogy  of  Christ  quite  different  from  that 
with  which  they  were  familiar.  They  would  next  have 
missed,  in  its  place,  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount ;  and,  having 
found  a  portion  of  it  elsewhere,  they  would  have  regarded 
it  as  inaccurately  reported,  when  they  perceived,  that,  with 
much  verbal  similarity,  different  thoughts  were  in  fact  ex- 
pressed. They  would  have  been  offended  by  an  arrangement 
of  events,  throughout  the  narrative,  irreconcilable  with  that 
in    their  own   Gospel.     They  would   have   discovered,   that 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  105 

even  a  difFerent  uame,  Levi,  was  given  to  the  supposed 
author  of  that  Gospel,  in  the  account  of  his  being  called  by 
Christ  to  be  an  apostle.  Upon  further  examination,  many- 
other  discrepancies,  real  or  apparent,  —  that  is,  many  other 
reasons  for  rejecting  this  new  history,  —  would  have  presented 
themselves ;  and,  so  far  from  its  being  admitted  to  the  same 
rank  with  that  which  they  had  before  used,  it  would  have 
been  thrown  aside  with  strong  dislike.  Beside  the  prejudice 
against  it  which  would  thus  necessarily  exist,  we  must 
recollect  that  all  well-founded  claims  to  genuineness  and 
credit  are  excluded  by  the  supposition  we  are  considering. 
There  is  therefore  no  other  account  to  be  given  of  the  com- 
mon reception  of  these  two  Gospels,  together  with  the  re- 
maining two,  as  all  of  equal  authority,  except  this,  that  they 
had  been  handed  down  from  the  apostolic  age  as  the  works 
of  the  persons  to  whom  they  were  ascribed,  and  had  always 
been  regarded  as  of  equal  authority. 

To  recur  for  a  moment  to  the  notion  of  a  concerted  pian 
to  select  our  present  Gospels,  ascribe  them  to  certain  au- 
thors, and  bring  them  into  common  use,  it  may  be  observed, 
that  the  more  intelligent  Christians  before  the  end  of  the 
second  century  would  not  have  concerted  a  plan  to  bring  four 
Gospels  into  use,  which  the  most  able  and  learned  of  their 
immediate  successors,  Origen,  thought  exposed  to  such  seri- 
ous objections,  when  compared  with  each  other. 

With  the  argument  just  stated,  a  consideration  is  connected 
which  deserves  particular  attention.  It  is,  that,  if  the  genu- 
ineness of  any  one  of  the  four  Gospels  be  proved,  a  very 
strong  presumption  immediately  arises  in  favor  of  the  genu- 
ineness of  the  remaining  three.  If  the  four  Gospels  were 
not  handed  down  from  the  apostolic  age,  and  received  in 
common  by  succeeding  Christians,  then,  at  some  period  after 
that  age,  their  respective  claims  to  authority  must  have  come 
in  competition.     But,  if  any  one  of  them  were  genuine,  the 


106  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

authority  of  this  had  been  acknowledged  since  the  times  of 
the  apostles.  Now,  we  cannot  suppose  tliat  Christians,  ac- 
customed to  use  a  gospel  which  they  believed,  or,  rather, 
which,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  they  knew  to  be  genuine, 
would  receive  a  spurious  history  of  Christ  as  of  equal  au- 
thority. All  their  prejudices  would  have  been  in  favor  of 
the  book  to  which  they  were  accustomed.  This,  then,  being 
genuine,  and  the  other  spurious,  the  evidence  for  the  former 
being  decisive,  and  the  pretended  evidence  in  favor  of  the 
latter  false,  there  could  be  little  probability  that  the  new 
work  would  be  classed  with  that  already  received,  as  a  sacred 
book  of  the  highest  value.  No  probable  motive,  nor  mistake, 
can  be  imagined,  which  might  lead  to  so  extraordinary  a 
result. 

This  is  taking  the  most  obvious  view  of  the  subject.  But 
when  we  further  consider  the  discrepancies  among  the  Gos- 
pels, and  reflect  that  the  new  history  must  have  appeared,  in 
some  respects,  inconsistent  with,  and  contradictory  to,  that 
genuine  Gospel,  the  authority  of  which  was  already  estab- 
lished, we  perceive  how  incredible  it  is  that  the  former  would 
have  been  placed  on  a  level  with  the  latter.  "Without  doubt, 
it  would  have  been  rejected.  Common  policy  alone,  if  it 
were  necessary  to  recur  to  such  a  consideration,  would  have 
prevented  Christians  from  giving  the  same  authority  to  a 
spurious  as  to  a  genuine  book,  if  discrepancies  existed  be- 
tween them ;  as  these  discrepancies  would  expose  the  whole 
history  to  the  cavils  and  objections  of  unbelievers. 

It  appears,  therefore,  that,  if  any  one  of  the  Gospels  be 
genuine,  this  circumstance  alone  goes  far  to  prove  that  all 
are  genuine.  If  the  evidence  for  either  of  the  Gospels  had 
been  much  weaker  than  that  for  the  other  three,  its  discrep- 
ancies from  them,  if  there  had  been  no  other  cause,  would 
have  decided  its  rejection.  The  fact  that  we  have  four 
Gospels,  which,  with  all  their  essential  agreement,  differ  so 
much  from  each  other,  is  a  very  important  means  of  proving 


GENUINENESS    OF   THE   GOSPELS.  107 

the  genuineness  of  all  and  of  any  one  of  them.  That  these 
discrepancies  should  serve  to  confirm  our  faith  in  all  that  is 
essential  or  important  in  the  narrative  contained  in  the  Gos- 
pels, has  been  often  observed.  They  show  that  the  writers 
had  each  independent  means  of  information.  Such  discrep- 
ancies naturally,  and  almost  necessarily,  exist  among  all 
original  histories  of  the  same  events. 


We  will  pass  to  another  consideration,  showing  that  the 
Gospels  must  have  been  transmitted  as  genuine  from  the 
apostolic  age. 

They  are  evidently  the  works  of  Jewish  authors.*     But 


*  To  this  statement  may  be  objected  the  opinion,  which  has  obtained  some 
currency,  that  Luke  was  a  Uentile  by  birth.  But  this  opinion  is  countenanced 
by  only  a  very  shght  show  of  evidence. 

The  main  argument  for  it  is  derived  from  the  concluding  verses  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  where  St.  Paul,  after  sending  salutations  from  some 
wb.om  he  designates  as  "  of  the  circumcision  "  (chap.  iv.  11),  afterwards  sends 
salutations  from  others,  whom  it  is  supposed  tliat  he  meant  to  distinguish  from 
tho><e  first  mentioned  by  him,  as  not  being  of  the  circumcision.  Among  them 
is  Luke;  and  hence  it  has  been  inferred  that  Luke  was  by  birth  a  Gentile. 

But  those  who  favor  this  opinion  admit  that  he  was  a  proselyte  to  the 
Jewish  religion  before  becoming  a  Cliristian;  and  Lardner  has  shown,  that 
there  were  not,  as  has  been  represented,  two  classes  of  proselytes  among  the 
Jews,  —  one  circumcised,  and  tlie  otl;er  uncircumcised.  (Works,  ed.  4to,  1815, 
vol.  iii.  p.  395,  seqq. ;  vol  v.  p.  496,  seqq.  Compare  Wetstein's  note,  N.  T., 
vol.  i.  pp.  483-485.  See  also  Justin  Martyr's  Dial,  cum  Tryph.,  pp.  399-401, 
ed.  Thirlb.,  or  p.  215,  ed.  Maran.)  All  proselytes  were  circumcised.  If  Luke, 
therefore,  had  been  a  proselyte,  it  could  not  liave  been  the  purpose  of  the 
aposlle  to  di-tinguish  him  as  not  being  of  the  circumcision;  and  the  argu- 
ment therefore  falls  to  the  ground. 

But  tlie  question  whether  Luke  were  a  Jew  or  Gentile  by  birth  is  wholly 
iniimportant,  not  merely  in  regard  to  the  reasoning  in  the  text,  but  in  regard 
to  the  correct  u<e  of  language  in  calling  him  "a  Jewisli  writer."  Proselytes, 
as  we  learn  from  Dion  Cassius  (quoted  by  Wetstein,  tibisup  ),  were  commonly 
called  Jews;  they  being  Jews  by  religion,  and  having  become  incorporated 
with  the  Jewish  nation.  St.  Luke  (not,  however,  as  I  conceive,  on  the  ground 
©f  his  being  a  proselyte,  but  because  he  was  a  Jew  by  birtli)  ranks  himself 


108  EVIDENCES    OF   THE 

the  Gospels  descend  to  us  through  the  Gentile  branch  of 
Christians.  Now,  as  has  been  already  observed,*  the  Jewish 
and  Gentile  Christians,  from  the  first  admission  of  the  latter 
into  the  Church,  had  a  strong  tendency  to  separate,  and  form 
distinct  societies.  Hardly  held  together  by  the  authority  of 
the  apostles,  they  seem  to  have  started  asunder  as  soon  as  the 
power  of  the  apostles  was  removed.  Very  soon,  the  Gentile 
Christians  far  outnumbered  the  Jewish ;  and  the  two  parties 
seem  to  have  regarded  each  other  with  somewhat  the  same 
feelinojs  as  had  belonsjed  to  Jews  and  Gentiles  before  the 
introduction  of  Christianity.  Before  the  close  of  the  second 
century,  we  find  the  Jewish  Christians,  with  perhaps  some 
individual  exceptions,  regarded  as  heretics,  under  the  name 
of  Ebionites.  There  is  therefore  a  great  improbability, 
that,  at  any  period  after  the  apostolic  age.  Gentile  Christians 
would  have  received  from  Jewish  Christians  four  spurious 
histories  of  Christ,  purporting  to  have  been  written  by 
apostles  and  companions  of  apostles,  and  would  have  deferred 
with  such  credulity  to  their  testimony  as  to  ascribe  to  these 
works  the  character  of  sacred  books. 

The  improbability  of  this  supposition  is  increased  by  the 
fact,  that  the  four  Greek  Gospels  —  the  works  in  question  — 
were  not  in  common  use  among  Jewish  Christians.  They 
made  use  only  of  a  Hebrew  Gospel,  which,  there  seems  to 
be  no  reason  to  doubt,  was,  as  they  first  received  it,  the 
Hebrew  original  of  Matthew's  Gospel ;  though  this,  in  pro- 
cess of  time,  became  corrupted  in  their  hands.  Their  early 
reception  of  the  Hebrew  original  may  have  countenanced  the 
use  of  the  Greek  translation  of  Matthew ;  but,  in  regard  to 
the  other  three   Gospels,  the  Gentile  Christians  could  not 

with  Jews  in  the  commencement  of  his  Gospel,  speaking  "  of  the  events  ac- 
compHshed  among  us.''^    Whatever  question  may  have  been  raised  respecting 
the  parentage  of  Luke,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  author  of  the  Gospel 
ascribed  to  him  was  a  Jew  by  birth  or  by  adoption,  —  a  Jewish  writer. 
*  See  before,  p.  51. 


GENUINENESS    OF   THE   GOSPELS.  109 

have  received  them  upon  the  authority  and  recommendation 
of  the  Jewish  Christians,  by  whom  they  were  not  used. 

But  there  is  another  circumstance  to  be  considered.  The 
Gospels  are  evidently  the  work,  not  merely  of  Jewish 
authors,  but  of  unlearned  Jewish  authors ;  men  unskilled  in 
the  use  of  language  generally,  and  of  the  Greek  language 
in  particular.  These  writings  can  make  no  pretension  to 
any  merely  literary  merit.  Their  Hebraistic  style  and 
idioms,  with  the  peculiar  senses  given  to  words,  must 
have  obscured  their  meaning,  and  made  them  appear  bar- 
barous to  those  whose  native  language  was  the  Greek. 
Origen  informs  us,  that  "the  style  of  the  Scriptures  was 
regarded  by  the  Greeks  as  poor  and  contemptible."*  — "  Lit- 
erary men,"  says  Lactantius,  "  when  they  give  their  attention 
to  the  religion  of  God,  unless  they  receive  their  fundamental 
instruction  from  some  able  teacher,  do  not  become  believers ; 
for,  being  accustomed  to  pleasing  and  polished  discourses  and 
poems,  they  despise  as  sordid  the  simple  and  common  Ian 
guage  of  the  divine  writings."  f  If,  therefore,  the  Gospels 
had  not  been  genuine,  their  style  and  idiom  alone  would  have 
formed  no  small  obstacle  to  their  reception. 

Let  us  now  put  these  circumstances  together,  and,  advert- 
ing merely  to  the  particular  view  of  the  subject  just  taken, 
consider  what  is  necessarily  embraced  in  the  supposition,  that 
the  Gospels,  being  spurious,  obtained  general  authority  after 
the  apostolic  age.  According  to  this  supposition,  while  the 
Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians  were  regarding  each  other 
with  but  very  little  favor,  four  spurious  works,  the  produc- 
tion of  illiterate  Jewish  writers  whose  names  are  wholly 
unknown,  the  style  of  which  must  have  been  repulsive  to 
Greeks,  and  three  of  which  were  not  in  common  use  among 
Jewish  Christians,  and  therefore  not  recommended  by  their 


*  Comment,  in  Joan.,  torn.  iv.  §  2;  0pp.  iv.  93. 
t  Institut.  vi.  §  21. 


110  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

authority,  whatever  weight  that  might  have  had,  all,  in  a 
body,  obtained  the  highest  credit  as  sacred  books  throughout 
the  widely  dispersed  community  of  Gentile  Christians. 


It  is  acknowledged,  that  the  four  Gospels  were  received 
with  the  greatest  respect,  as  genuine  and  sacred  books,  by 
catholic  Christians ;  that  is,  by  the  great  body  of  Christians 
at  the  end  of  the  second  century.  But,  earlier  than  this 
time,  it  has  been  pretended  that  we  find  no  trace  of  their 
existence ;  and  hence  it  has  been  inferred,  that,  before  this 
time,  they  were  not  in  common  use,  and  were-  but  little 
known,  even  if  extant  in  their  present  state.*  I  shall  here- 
after produce  notices  of  their  existence  at  a  much  earlier 
period.  But  waiving,  for  the  present,  this  consideration,  the 
reasoning  appears  not  a  little  extraordinary.  About  the  end 
of  the  second  century,  the  Gospels  were  reverenced  as  sacred 
books  by  a  community  dispersed  over  the  world,  composed 
of  men  of  different  nations  and  languages.  There  were,  to 
say  the  least,  sixty  thousand  copies  of  them  in  existence ;  t 
they  were  read  in  the  churches  of  Christians  ;  they  were 
continually  quoted,  and  appealed  to,  as  of  the  highest  author- 
ity ;  their  reputation  was  as  well  established  among  believers, 
from  one  end  of  the  Roman  empire  to  the  other,  as  it  is  at 
the  present  day  among  Christians  in  any  country.  But  it  is 
asserted,  that,  before  that  period,  we  find  no  trace  of  their 
existence ;  and  it  is  therefore  inferred,  that  they  were  not  in 
common  use,  and  but  little  known,  even  if  extant  in  their 
present  form.  This  reasoning  is  of  the  same  kind  as  if  one 
were  to  say  that  the  first  mention  of  Egyptian  Thebes  is  in 
the  poems  of  Homer.  He,  indeed,  describes  it  as  a  city 
which  poured  a  hundred  armies  from  its  hundred  gates  ;  but 

*  See  before,  p.  7.  t  See  before,  p.  32. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  Ill 

his  is  the  first  mention  of  it,  and  therefore  we  have  no  rea- 
son to  suppose,  that,  before  his  time,  it  was  a  place  of  any 
considerable  note.  The  general  reception  of  the  Gospels  as 
books  of  the  highest  authority,  at  the  end  of  the  second 
century,  necessarily  implies  their  celebrity  at  a  much  earlier 
period,  and  the  long-continued  operation  of  causes  sufficient 
to  produce  so  remarkable  a  phenomenon. 

This  phenomenon,  it  may  appear  from  what  has  been  said, 
could  not  have  been  the  result  of  any  combination,  nor  of 
fraud,  nor  accident.  Those  by  whom  the  Gospels  were 
received  as  books  of  the  highest  value  were  men  superior, 
generally,  in  moral  and  intellectual  qualities,  to  their  con- 
temporaries. If  they  were  deceived,  it  was  at  their  peril ; 
they  enjoyed  such  means  of  knowledge  concerning  the  his- 
tory of  the  Gospels  as  might,  and  we  may  truly  say  must, 
have  removed  all  doubt  whether  they  were  genuine  or  not ; 
and,  in  their  words  and  by  their  lives,  they  unequivocally 
affirmed  them  to  be  genuine.  The  first  three  Gospels,  when 
compared  together,  present  appearances  which,  viewed  in 
connection  with  the  fact  of  their  general  reception,  admit  of 
no  explanation  that  does  not  suppose  their  genuineness.  But 
further :  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  the  Gospels  must  have 
made  their  way  to  general  reception  by  their  intrinsic  worth 
and  authority.  Four  histories  of  Christ,  the  work  of 
unlearned  Jewish  authors,  written  in  a  style  which  must  have 
appeared  barbarous  to  native  Greeks,  and  regarded  by  those 
who  held  them  in  the  highest  respect  as  presenting  discrep- 
ancies with  each  other,  which,  in  the  literal  sense  of  their 
words,  were  irreconcilable,  obtained  equal  reception  through- 
out the  Christian  community,  from  beyond  the  Euphrates, 
through  Asia  Minor,  Greece,  Egypt,  and  Italy,  to  the  western 
coasts  of  Spain  and  Africa.  They  were  received  as  sacred 
books  by  portions  of  this  community,  who  probably  had 
never  heard  of  each  other's  existence.  Wherever  the  reli- 
gion had  spread,  they  had  spread  with  it.     The  faith  of 


112        GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS. 

Christians  rested  on  the  belief  of  their  authenticity.  Of 
these  facts,  no  other  account  can  be  given,  than  that  those 
writings  were  derived  from  the  same  sources  as  the  religion 
itself,  and  had  been  handed  down  with  it  from  the  apostolic 
age,  as  its  authentic  records.  But,  if  this  be  so,  no  reasonable 
question  can  be  raised  respecting  their  genuineness.  It 
could  not  be  establish.ed  by  any  proof  more  decisive  and 
unsuspicious  than  what  has  just  been  stated ;  for  it  appears 
as  a  necessary  inference  from  notorious  and  indisputable 
facts. 


Such  is  the  conclusion  concerning  the  genuineness  of  the 
Gospels  to  be  drawn  from  the  fact  of  their  reception  as 
genuine  throughout  the  community  of  catholic  Christians  in 
the  last  quarter  of  the  second  century.  But  all  reasoning 
on  historical  subjects,  however  decisive  it  may  seem,  admits 
of  confirmation  ;  and  we  are  not  satisfied  till  whatever  difl[i- 
culties  have  been  opposed  to  it  are  removed.  We  will 
therefore  proceed  to  examine  whether  the  conclusion  to 
which  we  have  arrived  is  confirmed  or  weakened  by  evidence 
from  a  still  earlier  period.  We  will  first  attend  to  the  evi- 
dence of  Justin  Martyr.  It  has  been  maintained,  as  we  have 
before  seen,*  that  he  did  not  quote  the  Gospels ;  but  con- 
sistently with  the  conclusion  to  which  we  have  arrived,  and 
in  confirmation  of  it,  I  trust  it  may  be  clearly  shown,  that  he 
did  quote  the  same  Gospels  to  which  we  now  appeal,  and 
that  he,  and  the  Christians  contemporary  with  him,  held 
them  in  as  high  respect  as  the  Christians  who  immediately 
succeeded  him,  or  as  do  Christians  at  the  present  day. 

*  See  before,  p.  4. 


CHAPTER    11. 

EVIDENCE    TO   BE   DERIVED    FROM   THE    WRITINGS    OF 
JUSTIN   MARTYR. 

In  ascending  toward  the  apostolic  age,  after  the  fathers  who 
have  been  mentioned  in  the  last  chapter,  we  come  to  Justin 
Martyr,  who  flourislied  about  the  year  150.  He  was  of  Gen- 
tile extraction,  born  in  Flavia  Neapolis,  a  city  of  Samaria,  in 
the  latter  part  of  the  first  or  in  the  beginning  of  the  second 
century.  He  studied  the  difFerent  systems  of  heathen  phi- 
losophy under  several  masters.  He  preferred  the  Platonic, 
until  he  became  acquainted  with  Christianity,  which  he  then 
embraced  as  the  only  "certain  and  useful  philosophy."  He 
appears  to  have  spent  much  of  his  life  in  travelling;  and, 
according  to  Eusebius,  chose  Rome  for  his  residence,  where, 
as  there  seems  no  reason  to  doubt,  he  suffered  martyrdom. 
As  early  as  the  year  150,  he  addressed  a  Defence  of  Chris- 
tianity to  the  Emperor  Antoninus  Pius,  in  connection  with 
Marcus  Antoninus  and  Lucius  Verus,  and  the  Roman  senate 
and  people.  Afterwards,  he  wrote  another  work  in  explana- 
tion and  defence  of  Christianity,  in  the  form  of  a  dialogue 
with  an  unbelieving  Jew,  called  Trypho.  It  is  doubtful 
whether  the  form  given  to  it  be  wholly  fictitious,  or  whether 
the  work  were  occasioned  by  a  conference  which  actually 
took  place.  Not  long  before  his  death,  he  published  a  second 
Defence  of  Christianity.  His  two  defences  are  commonly 
called  Apologies,  the  name  being  used  in  the  sense  of  the 

8 


114  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

Greek  word  from  which  it  is  derived;  namely,  "defence," 
"  vindication." 

Beside  those  that  have  been  mentioned,  Justin  composed 
writings  which  are  lost.  There  are  three  other  short  works 
extant,  of  which  he  was  perhaps  the  author.*  But  they  are 
all  addressed  to  Gentile  unbelievers,  and  contain  no  reference 
to  any  book  giving  a  history  of  Christ.  This  is  true,  like- 
wise, of  his  second  Apology,  which  is  short.  It  was  occa- 
sioned by  a  paiticular  act  of  persecution  at  Rome,  in  which 
three  Christians  were  put  to  death.  Our  attention,  therefore,  is 
confined  to  the  fii'st  Apology,  and  the  Dialogue  with  Tryplio. 

From  these  works  of  Justin  might  be  extracted  a  brief 
account  of  the  life  and  doctrines  of  Christ,  corresponding 
with  that  contained  in  the  Gospels,  and  corresponding  to 
such  a  degree,  both  in  matter  and  words,  that  almost  every 
quotation  and  i-eference  may  be  readily  assigned  to  its  proper 
place  in  one  or  other  of  the  Gospels.  There  was  conse- 
quently, till  within  a  short  period,  no  doubt  entertained  that 
the  Gospels  were  quoted  by  Justin.  The  facts  just  men- 
tioned do  not  fully  establish  this  proposition ;  but  they  afford 
a  strong  presumption  of  its  truth.  To  the  supposition,  how- 
ever, that  Justin  quoted  the  Gospels,  objections  have  been 
made,  which,  as  far  as  they  are  important,  may  be  reduced  to 
the  three  following  heads  :  — 

I.  He  nowhere  designates  any  one  of  the  Gospels  by  the 
title  of  it  afterwards  in  use,  or  names  the  evangelists  as 
the  authors  whom  he  quotes.  His  quotations  are  taken  from 
what  he  calls  "  Memoirs  by  the  Apostles ; "  for  so  we  may 
translate  the  title  which  he  gives  to  the  work  or  works  to 
which  he  appeals.f 


*  Ad  Gr.'ecos  Oratio,  Ad  Grjecos  Cohortatio,  De  Mouarchia. 
t  Tu  ^A.Tzo/xv7]fiovevfj.aTa  tuv  ^AnoardTiUV. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        115 

n.  There  is  a  great  want  of  verbal  coincidence  between  his 
quotations,  and  the  corresponding  passages  in  the  Gospels. 

III.  He  has  passages  apparently  or  professedly  taken 
from  the  written  history  of  Christ  used  by  him,  which  are 
not  found  in  the  Gospels.* 

The  facts  stated  in  the  first  two  objections  admit  of  suffi- 
cient explanation,  by  attending  to  the  character  of  Justin's 
writings,  and  the  circumstances  under  which  they  were  com- 
posed. His  quotations  are  found,  as  has  been  said,  in  his 
first  and  longer  Apology,  and  in  his  Dialogue  with  Trypho. 
In  the  former  work,  he  gives  an  account  of  Christ  and  his 
ministry,  of  the  doctrines  and  precepts  of  his  religion,  and 
of  the  character  of  his  followers.  He  is,  throughout,  ad- 
dressing heathens. 

We  will  first,  then,  consider  the  manner  in  which  he  has 
described  the  Gospels  (as  we  believe)  in  this  Apology.f  He 
quotes  much  from  them  without  any  express  reference  or 
description,  which,  however,  he  has  given  three  times,  in  the 
following  words :  — 

1.  '^  And  the  messenger  then  sent  to  that  virgin  announced 
to  her  the  glad  news,  saying,  '  Behold,  thou  shalt  conceive 
through  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  bring  forth  a  son,  and  he  shall 
be  the  son  of  the  Most  High ;  and  thou  shalt  call  his  name 

*  These  objections  are  stated  in  a  dissertation  by  F.  A.  Stroth,  published 
in  the  first  volume  of  Eichhorn's  Repertorium,  and  entitled,  Entdeckte  Frag- 
mente  des  Evangeliums  nach  den  Hebraern  in  Justin  dem  Martyrer;  i.e., 
Fragments  of  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  discovered  in  Justin 
Martyr.  —  Eichhorn's  Einleitung  in  d.  N.  T.,  i.  78-106.  —  Bishop  Marsh's 
Letters  to  the  anonymous  Author  of  Remarks  on  Michaelis  and  his  Com- 
mentator, pp.  28-32 ;  and  his  Illustration  of  his  Hypothesis  respecting  the 
Origin  and  Composition  of  our  three  first  Gospels,  Appendix,  pp.  22-79. 

t  The  order  of  the  Apologies  in  the  older  editions  being  inverted,  the  first 
written  is  often  cited  as  the  second ;  as  it  is  b^'  Eichhorn.  This  fact,  if  not 
explained,  might  produce  some  confusion.  I  call  that  the  first  Apology  which 
was  first  written,  and  which  is  placed  first  in  the  later  editions;  and  follow, 
in  quoting,  the  pages  of  Thirlby's  edition. 


116  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

Jesug ;  for  lie  shall  deliver  his  people  from  their  sins  ;  *  as  those 
who  have  written  memoirs  concerning  every  thing  relating  to 
our  Saviour,  Jesus  Christ,  have  taught,  whom  we  believed* 

2.  In  giving  an  account  of  the  Last  Supper  of  our  Lord, 
he  says,  "  The  apostles,  i7i  the  Memoirs  composed  hy  them, 
which  are  called  Gospels,  have  thus  informed  us,"t  &c. 

3.  He  says,  "  On  the  day  which  is  called  the  day  of  the 
Sun  [Sunday],  we  all,  whether  dwelling  in  cities  or  in  the 
country,  assemble  together ;  when  the  Memoirs  by  the  Apos- 
tles,$  or  the  writings  of  the  Prophets,  are  read,  as  long  as 
time  permits."  He  then  describes  the  rest  of  the  service, 
which  consisted  in  an  exhortation,  prayer,  the  celebration  of 
the  Lord's  Su|,per,  and  a  contribution  for  the  poor. 

We  believe  that  the  books  of  which  Justin  thus  speaks 
were  the  Gospels ;  and  it  does  not  appear  how,  in  addressing 
a  heathen  emperor  and  heathen  readers,  he  could  have  de- 
scribed them  more  clearly  than  he  has  done,  or  afforded  more 
satisfactory  proof  that  they  were  the  works  to  which  he 
appealed.  How  early  the  term  rendered  "  Gospel "  came 
to  be  applied  to  a  history  of  Christ,  is  uncertain.  We  have 
no  evidence  that  it  was  so  long  before  the  time  of  Justin. 
In  this  application,  the  word  was  so  removed  from  its  original 
sense,  that  the  meaning  put  upon  it  would  not  have  been  un- 
derstood, without  explanation,  by  a  native  Greek,  acquainted 
only  with  its  common  use  in  his  language.  If  it  was  per- 
ceived to  be  the  title  of  a  book,  it  would  still  convey  to  him 
no  proper  and  distinct  notion  of  the  contents  of  that  book. 
This,  therefore,  was  not  a  title  to  be  used  without  explana- 
tion by  Justin,  in  addressing  a  Roman  emperor.  Nor  would 
there  have  been  more  propriety  in  his  giving  the  names  of 
the  authors  of  the  respective  Gospels.  Of  Matthew,  Mark, 
Luke,  and  John,  neither  the  emperor,  nor  the  generality  of 
those  heathens  who  might  read  his  Apology,  had  probably 

*  p.  54.  t  p.  96.  X  P-  97. 


Gl  NUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  117 

ever  heard.  The  names  of  four  unknown  individuals  would 
have  carried  with  them  no  Isistorical  authority.  Considering 
the  state  of  things  at  the  time  when  Justin  wrote,  there  would 
have  been  something  incongruous,  and  almost  ludicrous,  in 
quoting  by  name  "The  Gospel  according  to  Matthew,"  or 
"The  Gospel  according  to  Luke,"  in  an  address  to  the 
Roman  emperor  and  senate.  The  object  of  Justin,  in  appeal- 
ing to  any  history  of  Christ  was,  to  show,  that  his  own  state- 
ments rested  on  authority  acknowledged  by  those  in  whose 
name  he  spoke.  It  was  necessary,  therefore,  for  him  to  de- 
scribe those  books  in  words  which  would  be  understood,  and 
which  would  show,  at  the  same  time,  how  they  were  esteemed 
by  Christians.  This  is  what  he  has  done.  He  calls  them 
"Memoirs  by  the  Apostles."  The  description  was  of  the  kind 
which  his  purpose  required,  and  was  sufficiently  correct :  for, 
though  only  two  of  the  Gospels  were  written  by  apostles,  the 
other  two,  according  to  the  universal  sentiment  of  antiquity, 
were  considered  as  carrying  with  them  apostolic  authority ; 
being  sanctioned  by  apostles,  and  containing  only  narratives 
derived  from  them.  We  shall  presently  perceive,  that,  on 
another  occasion,  he  expressed  himself  with  perfect  accuracy. 
In  his  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  Justin  defends  and  maintains 
Christianity  against  the  objections  of  the  unbelieving  Jews. 
Like  his  Apologies,  therefore,  this  work  was  intended  to  be 
read  by  unbelievers,  and  by  unbelievers  who,  as  appears  from 
a  passage  to  be  hereafter  quoted,  might  never  have  heard  the 
names  of  the  evangelists.  In  speaking  of  the  Gospels,  Justin, 
accordingly,  pursues  the  same  course  as  in  his  Apology.  But, 
in  this  Dialogue,  we  find  the  following  passage :  "  In  those 
Memoirs,'^  says  Justin,  ^'"which  I  affirm  to  have  been  com- 
posed  by  apostles  of  Christ  and  their  companions^  it  is  writ- 
ten, that  sweat,  like  drops  of  blood,  flowed  from  him  while 
he  was  praying."  * 


p.  361. 


118  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

That  companions  of  the  apostles  are  here  named. by  Justin 
serves  especially  to  prove,  that  he  referred  to  the  Gospels, 
wh^n  viewed  in  connection  with  the  fact,  that  the  passage 
which  he  immediately  quotes  is  found  only  in  the  Gospel  of 
Luke,  who  was  a  companion  of  the  apostles.  In  another 
place,*  a  little  after,  Justin  speaks  of  our  Saviour's  changing 
the  name  of  Peter,  "  as  it  is  written  in  his  Memoirs ; "  and 
likewise  of  his  giving  to  James  and  John  the  name  of  Boa- 
nerges.f  By  his  Memoirs,  according  to  Justin's  constant  use 
of  language,  we  must  understand  Memoirs  of  which  Peter 
may  be  regarded  as  the  author.^  But  it  was  the  opinion  of 
the  ancients,  that  Mark's  Gospel  was  essentially  the  narra- 
tive of  Peter,  and  thus  entitled  to  apostolic  authority.  The 
mention  of  the  surname  given  to  James  and  John  is  to  be 
found  in  no  other  Gospel. 

The  explanation  which  has  been  given  of  the  fact,  that 
Justin  does  not  mention  the  evangelists  by  name,  is  con- 
firmed by  a  passage  before  referred  to,§  as  proving  that  those 
for  whom  he  intended  his  work  might  never  have  heard  the 
names  of  the  evangelists.  He  believed  that  the  Apocalypse 
was  written  by  St.  John ;  and  in  defending  the  doctrine  of  a 
millennium,  after  quoting  passages  from  the  Old  Testament, 
he  appeals  to  that  work  in  the  following  terms :  "  And  a 
man  of  our  own  number,  by  name  John,  one  of  the  apostles 
of  Christ,  in  the  revelation  which  was  made  by  him,  has 
prophesied  that  the  believers  in  our  Christ  shall  spend  a 


*  p.  365.  t  Comp.  Mark  iii.  17. 

X  As  'AttocttoAwv  elscAvhere,  when  governed  by  ^ k-KOiivrjiiovEviiara,  denotes 
the  authors,  and  not  the  subjects,  of  these  Memoirs;  so,  in  this  passage,  tha 
genitive  airotJ  must  refer  to  him  who  was  regarded,  in  a  certain  sense,  as 
the  author  of  the  work  in  question,  namely,  Peter,  and  not  to  the  subject 
of  the  work,  Christ.    Justin  nowhere  uses  the  expression,  ^Airofiv3]fiov€vinaTa 

XplOTOV. 

§  On  the  preceding  page. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  119 

thousand  years  in  Jerusalem ;  and  that  after  this  will  be,  to 
speak  briefly,  the  general  and  eternal  resurrection  and  judg- 
ment of  all  men  together."  *  With  the  exception  of  St.  Paul, 
there  was  probably  no  one  of  the  early  disciples  whose  name 
was  more  likely  to  be  known  to  unbelievers  than  that  of  St. 
John ;  yet  we  see  in  what  manner  he  is  here  mentioned.  It  is 
easy  to  perceive  how  little  advantage  or  propriety  there  would 
have  been  in  Justin's  quoting  the  evangelists  by  name,  when 
addressing  those  to  whom  their  names  were  unknown.  Nor 
was  there  any  cause  why,  with  the  purpose  which  he  had  in 
view,  either  in  his  Apology  or  his  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  he 
should  be  careful  to  distinguish  between  what  he  took  from 
one  evangelist,  and  what  from  another.  He  regarded  all  as 
of  equal  authority.  There  was  therefore  no  reason  why  he 
should  specify  the  different  evangelists  by  name  in  quoting 
their  Gospels.  There  was  not  even  a  suitable  occasion  for 
him  to  do  so. 

II.  We  come,  then,  to  the  second  objection,  —  the  want  of 
verbal  coincidence  between  the  quotations  of  Justin  and  the 
corresponding  passages  in  the  Gospels. 

In  order  to  understand  the  precise  force  of  this  objection, 
it  should  be  premised,  that,  in  the  quotations  in  question,  the 
language  answers  in  great  part  to  that  of  the  evangelists; 
but  that  the  cases  are  comparatively  rare  in  which  a  series 
of  words  of  any  considerable  length  runs  strictly  parallel 
with  the  corresponding  passage  in  the  Gospels.  There  is 
commonly  a  change,  addition,  or  omission  of  one  or  more 
words,  or  an  alteration  in  the  construction  or  arrangement. 

Respecting  the  objection,  as  thus  explained,  it  may  first  be 
remarked,  that  it  proceeds  on  a  false  assumption  concerning 
the  degree  of  accuracy  generally  to  be  found  in  the  quota- 
tions of  the  fathers,  in  cases  where  no  particular  circum- 

*  p.  316. 


120  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

stance  operated  to  produce  it.  Strict  verbal  coincidence 
between  their  citations  from  Scripture,  and  the  text  of  the 
New  Testament  or  of  the  Septuagint,  from  which  they 
quoted,  is  not  to  be  confidently  expected,  except  under  con- 
ditions which  do  not  apply  to  Justin's  citations  from  the 
Gospels.  The  fathers  may  be  presumed  to  have  quoted 
verbally  in  their  commentaries ;  because  they  may  be  sup- 
posed to  have  written  with  the  volume,  on  which  they  were 
commenting,  open  before  them.  There  is  a  presumption, 
likewise,  that  they  were  often  accurate  in  their  controversial 
writings ;  as  it  is  obviously  proper,  when  a  doctrine  is  to  be 
proved  or  disproved  by  the  Scriptures,  to  produce  the  pas- 
sages appealed  to  in  the  very  words  of  the  original.  They 
sometimes  give  proof  of  quoting  verbally  by  remarking  on 
the  various  readings  of  a  passage.  One  fiither,  likewise, 
from  habits  of  critical  study  of  the  Scriptures,  is  frequently 
correct,  while  another  is  more  inaccurate.  Origen,  for  ex- 
ample, quotes  generally  with  closer  adherence  to  the  text, 
than  Clement  of  Alexandria,  of  whom  it  has  been  remarked, 
that  "  he  not  unfrequently  cites  from  memory,  and  gives 
rather  the  sense  than  the  words  of  the  sacred  writers."* 
But,  in  many  of  the  works  of  the  fathers,  there  is  a  want  of 
verbal  coincidence  similar  to  that  found  in  Justin's  quotations 
from  the  Gospels.  The  other  fathers,  like  Justin,  quoted 
from  memory  carelessly,  substituting  one  synonymous  word 
or  clause  for  another,  transposing  the  order  of  words  and 
thoughts,  omitting  parts  of  a  passage,  paraphrasing,  inserting 
their  own  explanations,  expressing  the  meaning  in  their  own 
language,  and  blending  together  passages  which  stand  remote 
from  each  other  in  the  Scriptures. 

Ac<uiracy  of  quotation  seems  to  have  been  less  regarded 
by  ancient  writers,  in  general,  than  by  modern ;  a  circum- 
stance probably  arising  from  the  greater  difficulty  in  pro- 

*  Griesbach.  Symbol.  Crit.,  torn.  ii.  p.  235. 


GENUINENESS    OF   THE   GOSPELS.  121 

curing  and  in  consulting  books.  It  lias  been  remarked,  for 
instance,  that  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus,  in  his  rhetorical 
works,  often  quotes  the  same  passage  differently;  and  that, 
particularly,  he  has  long  citations  from  Isocrates  repeated, 
sometimes  more  than  once,  with  variations."*  We  may  men- 
tion, as  another  example,  the  well-known  fact  of  the  want 
of  exactness  in  the  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament, 
contained  in  the  Gospels  and  Epistles.  In  ancient  times, 
the  unrolling  of  a  volume  to  find  a  particular  passage  must 
have  taken  more  time,  and  given  more  trouble,  than  the 
opening  of  a  book  in  modern  days. 

But,  besides  the  false  assumption  respecting  the  general 
accuracy  of  the  fathers  in  their  quotations,  the  objection  we 
are  considering  rests  for  support  upon  an  express  assertion 
respecting  Justin  in  particular.  It  has  been  said,  that  "  Justin 
is  extremely  accurate  as  to  the  words  of  his  quotations."  t 
If  Justin  had  been  extremely  accurate  in  his  quotations  from 
other  books,  there  might  be  a  reasonable  doubt  whether  the 
"  Memoirs  by  the  Apostles "  were  the  four  Gospels,  on 
account  of  the  want  of  verbal  agreement  between  his  quota- 
tions and  the  text  of  the  Gospels.  But  with  the  special 
exception  to  be  hereafter  mentioned,  which  does  not  affect 
the  present  argument,  the  assertion  is  strangely  erroneous. 
Justin's  frequent  want  of  accuracy  in  his  quotations  has  been 
remarked  in  strong  language  by  the  commentators  on  his 
writings. I  There  is  a  great  want  of  verbal  coincidence  in 
many  of  his  quotations  from  the  Septuagint.  He  alters  and 
transposes  the  language  ;  he  brings  together  detached  pas- 
sages from  the  same  or  from  different  books,  giving  them  in 
connection,  as  if  they  followed  each  other  in  the  original. 

*  Vid.  Matthsei  Nov.  Test.  Graec6,  torn.  i.  p.  690,  n.  13. 
t  Marsh's  Letters,  p.  31,  note.    Comp.  Appendix  to  Illustration,  p.  32, 
•eqq. 

X  See  Thirlby's  edition,  pp.  75,  92,  166,  180. 


122  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

It  is  not  uncommon  for  him  to  commit  the  error  of  ascribing 
to  one  prophet  the  words  of  another;  and  he  has  even, 
apparently  through  indistinct  recollection  and  the  confound- 
ing of  different  things  together,  quoted  the  Pentateuch,  once 
expressly  and  once  by  implication,  for  fticts  not  to  be  found 
in  it.  I  have  noticed  in  his  Apologies  and  Dialogue  seven 
quotations  from  Plato.  There  is  one  of  them,  consisting 
only  of  four  words  in  the  original,  which  would  be  verbally 
accurate  if  Justin  had  not  inserted  a  particle.  None  of  the 
others  is  so.  In  three,  he  gives  what  he  conceived  to  be 
the  sense,  without  regard  to  the  words,  of  Plato ;  and,  in  the 
only  other  of  any  considerable  length,  there  is  much  discrep- 
ance of  language.  He  quotes  likewise  from  X'enophon  the 
story  of  the  choice  of  Hercules,  giving  this  also  in  his  own 
words. 

It  is  true,  that  many  of  Justin's  quotations  from  the  Sep- 
tuagint,  in  the  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  correspond  closely 
to  the  text  of  the  original.  But  their  difference  in  this 
respect  from  his  other  quotations  in  his  first  Apology  and  in 
the  Dialogue  is  easily  explained.  Many  of  those  referred  to 
are  of  such  length,  as,  at  first  view,  to  render  it  improbable 
that  he  trusted  to  his  memory,  as  on  other  occasions.  In 
citing  a  whole  Psalm,  or  a  long  passage  from  one  of  the 
prophets,  he  is  verbally  correct,  or  nearly  so,  because,  as  it 
may  be  presumed,  he  recurred  to  the  volume,  and  transcribed 
it.  In  his  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  he  is  reasoning  in  contro- 
versy with  a  Jew  from  passages  of  the  Old  Testament ;  and 
this  circumstance  would  lead  him  to  pay  particular  attention 
to  accuracy  in  citing  it.  It  is  to  be  observed  also,  that,  for 
his  quotations  from  the  Septuagint,  he  had  an  invariable 
archetype ;  while,  on  the  contrary,  the  same  facts  or  dis- 
couises  were  often  recorded  in  different  terms  in  each  of  the 
first  three  Gospels.  This  diversity  would  tend  to  prevent  a 
distinct  and  accurate  impression  of  any  particular  form  of 
words  from  being  left  on  the  memory;  and  would,  at  the 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  123 

same  time,  seem  to  prove  it  unimportant  to  adhere  closely  to 
the  language  of  any  one  of  the  evangelists. 

It  seemed  proper  to  enter  into  the  preceding  explana- 
tions, in  order  to  show  the  sources  of  the  erroneous  reasoning 
respecting  the  quotations  of  Justin.  But  the  fact,  that  he 
did  not  cite  the  work  or  works,  which  he  entitles  "  Memoirs," 
with  verbal  accuracy,  admits  of  decisive  proof  In  at  least 
seventeen  instances,  he  has  repeated  the  same  quotation. 
Now,  if  he  had  cited  with  verbal  accuracy,  every  quotation, 
when  repeated,  must  have  agreed  with  itself.  But  this  is  not 
the  fact.  Passing  over  what  may  be  considered  as  trifling 
variations,  we  find,  that  in  more  than  half  of  them,  as  re- 
peated, there  is  a  striking  want  of  correspondence,  either  in 
the  words  themselves,  or  in  their  connection  with  other 
words  quoted.  Nothing  can  be  said  which  will  tend  either 
to  illustrate  or  to  set  aside  the  inference  from  this  fact.  The 
conclusion,  that  Justin  did  not  quote  the  "Memoirs"  used 
by  him  with  verbal  accuracy,  is  irresistible  ;  and  it  is  truly 
an  extraordinary  phenomenon,  that  an  hypothesis  should 
have  been  built  upon  the  opposite  supposition. 

It  would  have  been  strange,  if  Justin,  in  composing  such 
works  as  he  did,  had  regarded  verbal  accuracy  in  quoting 
the  Gospels.  He  wrote  for  unbelieving  Gentiles  and  Jews, 
—  men  ignorant  of  what  Christianity  really  was.  It  was  his 
purpose  to  give  a  general  view  of  its  history  and  character. 
In  pursuing  this  purpose,  while  using  the  Gospels  as  his 
main  authority,  he  intermixes  with  his  statements  quotations 
from  them,  sometimes  partly  in  the  words  of  the  original, 
and  partly  in  his  own.  He  blends  together  passages  taken 
from  different  places  in  the  same  Gospel,  or  from  different 
evangelists.  He  quotes  the  Gospels  from  memory,  as,  with 
the  exceptions  before  mentioned,  he  does  the  Septuagint. 
In  thus  quoting  the  Septuagint,  he  has  committed  remarkable 


124  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

mistakes  ;  but  he  might  well  feel  assured,  that,  in  reporting 
the  teachings  or  the  history  of  our  Lord,  his  memory  would 
not  so  fail  as  to  cause  him  to  give  a  false  representation  of 
them.  It  would  have  been,  not  a  degree  of  accuracy  that 
we  might  reckon  upon,  but  it  would  have  been  superstitious 
precision,  if,  in  addressing  a  Roman  emperor  or  unbelieving 
Jews,  he  had  thought  it  necessary  to  transcribe  the  exact 
words  of  any  one  of  the  Gospels  in  the  exact  order  in  which 
they  stand,  —  especially  while  he  found  the  same  facts  and 
the  same  sayings  presented  by  different  evangelists  in  differ- 
ent words.  In  works  of  such  a  character  as  those  of  Justin, 
composed  at  so  early  a  period  in  the  history  of  Christianity, 
his  mode  of  quotation  was  such  as  might  reasonably  be 
expected. 

In  not  mentioning  the  Gospels  by  the  titles  in  use  among 
Christians,  and  in  not  appealing  to  the  evangelists  by  name, 
Justin  pursued  a  course  similar  to  that  which  was  adopted  by 
a  long  series  of  Christian  Apologists  from  his  time  to  that  of 
Constantine.  In  other  words,  it  was  the  course  pursued 
by  the  fathers  generally  in  their  works  addressed  to  unbe- 
lievers, —  by  Justin's  disciple,  Tatian,  who,  though  he  formed 
a  history  of  Christ  out  of  the  four  Gospels,  does  not  make 
mention  of  them,  nor  of  the  evangelists,  in  his  Oration  to 
the  Gentiles ;  by  Athenagoras,  who  is  equally  silent  about 
them  in  his  Apology,  addressed,  in  the  last  quarter  of  the 
second  century,  to  Marcus  Aurelius ;  by  Theophilus,  who 
conforms  to  the  common  usage  of  the  writers  with  whom  he 
is  to  be  classed,  except  that,  as  before  mentioned,*  he  once 
speaks  of  "  the  Gospels,"  and  uses  once  the  name  "  Gospel," 
and  once  the  term  "  Evangelic  Voice,"  in  citing  the  Gos- 
pels, and  once  quotes  the  evangelist  John  by  name  ;  by  Ter- 
tullian,  who  quotes  the  Gospels  elsewhere  so  abundantly,  but 

*  See  before,  pp.  74,  75. 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE  GOSPELS.  125 

from  whose  Apology,  or  from  whose  work  "  To  the  Nations," 
no  information  (supposing  those  works  to  stand  alone)  could 
be  gleaned  concerning  them;  by  Minutius  Felix,  whose 
single  remaining  book  —  a  spirited  and  interesting  defence  of 
Christianity  and  attack  on  heathenism,  in  the  form  of  a 
dialogue  —  affords,  likewise,  no  evidence  that  the  Gospels 
were  in  existence;  by  Cyprian,  the  well-known  bishop  of 
Carthage  about  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  who  in  his 
defence  of  Christianity,  addressed  to  Demetrian,  a  heathen, 
does  not  name  the  Gospels  nor  the  evangelists ;  and,  to  come 
down  to  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century,  by  Arnobius, 
who,  in  his  long  work  "  Against  the  Gentiles,"  does  not  cite 
any  book  of  vScripture ;  and  by  Lactantius,  who,  in  his 
"Divine  Institutes,"  does  not  speak  of  the  Gospels,  nor 
quote  by  name  any  one  of  the  evangelists,  except  John,  and 
mentions  him  only  in  a  single  passage.* 

Cyprian,  in  his  work  addressed  to  Demetrian,  has  quota- 
tions from  Scripture,  and,  among  them,  three  from  the  Gos- 
pels, though  the  Gospels  are  not  expressly  named  by  him. 
On  this,  Lactantius  remarks,  that  Cyprian  has  not  treated 
the  subject  as  he  ought ;  for  Demetrian  "  was  not  to  be 
confuted  by  authorities  from  that  Scripture  which  he  re- 
garded as  false  and  fabricated,  but  by  arguments  and  rea- 
son." f 

Such,  as  we  have  seen,  was  the  course  generally  adopted 
by  the  fathers,  in  their  works  addressed  to  unbelievers. 
But,  among  all  who  have  been  mentioned,  Justin  is  remark- 
ably distinguished  by  the  abundance  of  his  quotations  from 
the  Gospels,  and  by  the  explicitness  with  which  he  has 
described  their  character. 

ni.  We  proceed  to  the  last  objection.  It  is,  that  Justin 
has  passages,  apparently  or  professedly  taken  from  the  his- 

*  Institut.,  lib.  iv.  §  8.  f  Ibid.,  lib.  v.  §  4. 


126  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

tory  or  histories  of  Christ  used  by  him,  which  are  not  found 
in  the  Gospels. 

In  respect  to  these  passages,  it  is  first  to  be  observed,  that 
with  only  one  exception,*  which  presents  no  considerable 
difficulty,  they  are  not  professedly  taken  by  Justin  fiom  the 
Memoirs  used  by  him,  or  from  any  other  book.  That  they 
are  not  found  in  the  Gospels  can  therefore  afford  no  proof 
that  Justin  did  not  elsewhere  quote  the  Gospels.  It  must 
be  remembered,  that  he  lived  near  the  times  of  the  apostles ; 
and  that  there  would  be  nothing  strange  in  his  having  learnt, 
by  oral  tradition,  or  from  some  writing  or  writings  then 
extant,  but  since  lost,  a  few  facts  respecting  our  Saviour,  not 
recorded  by  the  evangelists.  From  either  source,  accord- 
ingly, we  may  suppose  him  to  have  derived  one  or  two 
circumstances  which  he  mentions.  In  other  passages,  he 
has  probably  done  nothing  more  than  express,  in  different 
terms,  his  conception  of  the  meaning  of  the  evangelists ; 
sometimes  dilating  it  a  little,  and  blending  with  it  his  own 
inferences.  The  following  are  the  only  passages  of  sufficient 
"curiosity  or  importance  to  require  particular  remark. 

1.  Justin  says,  that  the  Jews  who  witnessed  the  miracles 
performed  by  Jesus  "said  that  they  were  a  magical  delu- 
sion ;  and  dared  to  call  him  a  magician,  and  a  deceiver  of 
the  people."  t 

Justin  has  here  only  stated,  in  different  language,  facts 
recorded  by  the  evangelists,  who  relate  that  the  enemies  of 
Christ  said,  that  he  cast  out  devils  by  Beelzebub,  and  that 
he  deceived  the  people.  Lactantius  expresses  himself  in  the 
same  manner  as  Justin.  "  He  performed  wonderful  things," 
says  that  writer ;  "  we  might  have  thought  him  a  magician, — 
as  you  now  think  him,  and  as  the  Jews  then  thought  him,  — 
if  all  the  prophets,  inspired  by  the  same  spirit,  had  not  pre- 

*  See  No.  4,  following.  j  Dial,  cum  Tr}'ph.,.p.  288. 


GENUINENESS    OF    THE    GOSPELS.  127 

dieted  that  the  Messiah  would  perform  those  very  things."* 
It  was  a  common  pretence  of  the  enemies  of  Christianity, 
that  our  Lord  performed  his  miracles  by  magic. 

2.  Justin  says,  that  "  Christ,  being  regarded  as  a  worker 
in  wood,  did  make,  while  among  men,  ploughs  and  yokes ; 
thus  setting  before  them  symbols  of  righteousness,  and  teach- 
ing an  active  lile."t 

It  may  be  doubted,  whether  Justin  was  acquainted  with 
any  narrative  to  this  effect.  In  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  the 
Nazarenes,  according  to  the  Common  Version,  are  repre- 
sented as  asking  concerning  Jesus,  "  Is  not  this  the  carpen- 
ter? "J  The  word  rendered  "  carpenter,"  Justin,  it  appears, 
understood  as  denoting  a  worker  in  wood,  which  is  not 
improbably  its  meaning  in  this  passage.  He  may  therefore 
have  mentioned  the  particular  implements  which  he  does, 
because  he  regarded  their  fabrication  as  part  of  the  proper 
business  of  a  worker  in  wood. 

3.  Justin  says,  that  "  when  Christ  was  born  at  Bethlehem, 
as  Joseph  could  find  no  room  in  any  inn  in  that  village,  he 
lodged  in  a  certain  cave,  near  the  village ;  and,  while  they 
were  there,  Mary  brought  forth  the  Messiah,  and  laid  him  in 
a  stall."  § 

There  was  a  prevailing  tradition,  that  our  Lord  was  born 
in  a  cave,  which  is  found  in  many  of  the  fathers  besides  Jus- 
tin. At  the  present  day,  in  the  East,  caves,  it  is  said,  are 
sometimes  used  for  stables.  OrigeiL  states,  that,  '•  conforma- 
bly to  the  account  in  the  Gospel-history  of  the  birth  of 
Christ,  there  is  shown  the  cave  in  Bethlehem,  in  which  he 
was  born ;  and,  in  the  cave,  the  stall  where  he  was  swathed : 
and  the  place  which  is  shown  is  fiimous  in  that  neighbor- 


*  Institut.,  lib.  v.  §  3.  f  Dial,  cum  Tryph.,  p.  333. 

t  Mark  vi.  3  §  Dial,  cum  Tryph.,  p.  306.     Comp.  Luke  ii.  7 


128  EVIDENCES  OF   THE 

hood,  even  among  those  who  are  aliens  from  the  faith,  on 
the  ground  that  in  this  cave  was  born  that  Jesus  whom 
Christians  revere  and  venerate."*  The  alleged  cave  of  the 
Nativity  is  still  shown  at  Bethlehem. 

4.  Justin  twice  t  gives  the  words.  Thou  art  my  Son,  this 
day  have  I  begotten  thee,  as  those  uttered  at  our  Saviour's 
baptism ;  and,  in  one  place,  says  expressly  that  the  woids 
were  found  in  the  Memoirs  by  the  Apostles. 

The  words  alleged  by  Justin  are  not  in  the  Gospels ;  but 
they  are  given,  as  uttered  at  the  baptism  of  our  Saviour,  by 
several  other  ancient  writers,  whose  acquaintance  with,  and 
constant  use  of,  the  Gospels  is  well  known.  They  are  found 
in  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Methodius,  Hilary,  Lactantius, 
and  Juvencus.  Augustin  states  that  these  words  were  the 
reading  of  some  manuscripts,  though  not,  it  was  said,  of 
the  most  ancient  Greek  copies,  upon  Luke  iii.  22 ;  and  they 
are  still  found  there  in  the  Cambridge  manuscript,  and  in 
several  Latin  manuscripts.^ 

This,  then,  is  nothing  more  than  an  error  common  to  Jus- 
tin, with  many  others.  It  seems  to  have  had  its  origin  in  a 
confusion  of  memory  ;  the  words  in  question  being  applied  to 
our  Saviour  repeatedly  in  the  New  Testament.§ 

5.  The  next  passage,  likewise,  relates  to  the  baptism  of  our 
Saviour.  Justin  says,  "  When  Jesus  came  to  the  river  Jor- 
dan, where  John  was  baptizing,  upon  his  entering  the  water, 
a  fire  was  kindled  in  the  Jordan ;  and  the  apostles  of  this 
same  person,  our  Messiah,  have  written,  that,  when  he  came 
out  of  the  water,  the  Holy  Spirit,  like  a  dove,  alighted  upon 
him."  II 

*  Cont  Cels.,  lib.  i.  §  51 ;  0pp.  i.  367. 

t  Dial,  cum  Tryph.,  p.  333  et  p.  361. 

J  See  Thirlby's  note,  p.  333;  and  Griesbach's  Nov.  Test.,  Luke  iii.  22. 

§  Acts  xiii.  33.   Heb.  i.  5;  v.  5.  ||  Dial,  cum  Tryph.,  p.  331. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  129 

Justin  says,  that,  as  Jesus  entered  the  water,  a  fire  was 
kindled  in  the  Jordan.  Of  this  story,  beside  the  mention  of 
it  by  him,  traces  are  elsewhere  extant."*  His  mention  of  it 
is  incidental.  In  what  precedes  the  passage  quoted,  he  is 
explaining  at  length  what  he  supposes  to  be  meant  by  "  the 
Spirit  of  God  resting  upon  Jesus."  In  relation  to  this  sub- 
ject, he  quotes  the  account  of  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
upon  Jesus  at  his  baptism,  and  alleges  for  this  fact  the  testi- 
mony of  the  apostles.  But  he  does  not  bring  into  his  argu- 
ment the  appearance  of  fire  in  the  Jordan  ;  nor,  according  to 
the  grammatical  construction  of  his  words,  does  he  say  that 
this  appearance  was  related  by  the  apostles. 

But  it  has  been  contended,  that  his  whole  account  of  the 
baptism  of  our  Lord  is  so  closely  connected,  that  he  must  be 
understood  as  giving  for  the  whole  the  authority  of  the  apos- 
tles, and  therefore  that  he  quoted  the  whole  from  his  Me- 
moirs by  the  Apostles.  This  seems  to  be  forcing  a  construction 
on  his  words,  for  the  sake  of  creating  a  difficulty  or  an  argu- 
ment. But,  should  it  be  admitted  that  Justin  is  to  be  thus 
understood,  we  might  conclude,  either  that  the  story  of  the 
fire  in  the  Jordan  had  been  interpolated  in  the  copy  of 
the  Gospels  which  he  used,  as  a  similar  story  has  been 
interpolated  in  two  manuscripts,  now  extant,  of  old  Latin 
versions ;  f  or,  what  may  seem  more  probable,  that  Justin, 
who  often  wrote  carelessly,  adduced  the  authority  of  the 
apostles  for  the  whole  of  his  account,  while  in  fact  it  applied 
only  to  the  essential  part  of  it,  and  not  to  the  circumstance 
which  he  had  incidentally  mentioned.  As  I  have  before 
observed,  he  twice  refers  to  the  Pentateuch  for  supposed 
facts  not  to  be  found  in  it. 

6.  The  following  is  the  only  remaining  passage :  "  Accord- 

*  See  Thirlby's  note,  p.  331 ;  and  Maran's  note,  p.  185  of  his  edition  of 
Justin.     Al?o  Grabe's  Spicilegium,  i.  69. 
t  See  Griesbach's  N.  T.,  Matt.  iii.  15. 
9 


130  ETIDENCES   OF   THE 

ingly,"  Justin  remarks,  "  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  said,  •  In  what- 
ever actions  I  apprehend  you,  by  those  I  will  judge  you.' "  * 

These  words  are  found,  with  some  variety  of  form,  in  many 
ancient  Christian  writers ;  but  Justin  is  the  only  one  who 
appears  to  ascribe  them  to  Christ.f  Plis  error,  for  I  doubt 
not  it  is  an  error,  may  have  arisen  from  a  failure  of  memory 
similar  to  that  throuirh  which  he  has  elsewhere  ascribed  to 
one  prophet  the  words  of  another ;  or,  perhaps,  he  may  have 
been  acquainted  with  some  tradition  or  writing  which  as- 
cribed the  saying  in  question  to  our  Saviour. 

There  are  a  few  sayings  attributed  to  Jesus  in  the  writings 
of  the  fathers,  which  are  not  recorded  in  the  Gospels.  Thus, 
for  example,  Irenceus  quotes,  $  without  distrust,  from  Papias 
a  pretended  discourse  of  our  Lord  relating  to  the  millennium, 
resemblinsf  the  extravasrant  fables  of  the  Jewish  rabbis  found 
in  the  Talmud.  He  is  represented  as  predicting,  that  there 
would  be  at  that  time  an  enormous  increase  in  the  size  and 
productiveness  of  plants,  particularly  of  the  vine  and  of  wheat, 
and  as  describing  the  clusters  of  grapes  as  about  to  be  indued 
with  a  human  voice.  The  story  deserves  particular  attention, 
as  serving  to  show  what  sort  of  materials  might  have  gone  to 
the  composition  of  the  Gospels,  if  their  composition  had  been 
deljiyed  till  the  times  of  Irenaius  and  Justin  Martyr. 

Origen  speaks  §  of  "  the  precept  of  Jesus,"  Be  good  money-' 
changers ;  that  is,  learn  to  distinguish  well  between  what  is 
true  and  what  is  false,  as  skilful  money-changers  distinguish 
readily  good  money  from  bad.  There  is  no  intrinsic  improba- 
bility that  these  words  were  uttered  by  Jesus.  Origen  often 
quotes  or  alludes  to  them.  So  also  does  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria, who  cites  them  as  words  of  Scripture ;  ||  and  they  are 

*  Dial,  cum  Tryph.,  p.  232. 

t  Fabricii  Cod.  Apoc.  N.  T.,  torn.  i.  p.  333 ;  ed.  2da. 

X  Cont.  Hteres  ,  lib.  v.  c  23,  §§  3,  4,  p.  333. 

§  Comment,  in  Joan.,  tom.  xix.  §  2 ;  0pp.  iv.  289,  where  see  Huet's  note. 

U  Stromal.,  lib.  i.  §  28,  p.  425.    See  Potter's  note. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  131 

found  in  many  other  ancient  writers,  though  the  greater  num- 
ber do  not  expressly  refer  them  to  Christ.* 

Clement  represents  our  Lord  as  saying,  "Ask  great  things, 
and  what  are  small  shall  be  given  you  in  addition."  t  Origen 
quotes  these  words  without  expressly  ascribing  them  to  Christ, 
but  appearing  to  give  them  as  his,  and  adds  the  following: 
"Ask  heavenly  things,  and  what  are  earthly  shall  be  given 
you  in  addition  ; "  |  and,  in  another  place,  he  states  that  Jesus 
said,  "  For  the  sake  of  the  weak,  I  was  weak ;  for  the  sake  of 
the  hungry,  I  hungered;  and,  for  the  sake  of  the  thirsty,  [ 
thirsted."  § 

We  know  how  familiarly  acquainted  Irenauis,  Clement,  and 
Origen  were  with  the  Gospels,  and  in  what  high  respect  they 
held  them.  The  fact,  therefore,  that  Justin  quotes  a  supposed 
saying  of  our  Lord  not  found  in  the  Gospels,  or  that  he  men- 
tions some  unimportant  incidents  not  recorded  in  them,  affords 
no  proof  that  he  was  not  equally  well  acquainted  with  the 
Gospels,  and  did  not  hold  them  in  like  respect. 

The  examination  of  the  passages  from  Justin,  which  we 
have  gone  over,  is  of  much  more  interest  than  may  appear 
at  first  sight.  He  carries  us  back  to  the  age  which  followed 
that  of  the  apostles.  His  writings  have  been  searched  for 
the  purpose  of  finding  some  notices  of  Christ,  or  some  inti- 
mations relating  to  him,  different  from  the  accounts  of  the 
evangelists.  But  nothing  that  can  be  regarded  as  of  any 
importance  has  been  discovered.  On  the  contrary,  he  gives 
a  great  part  of  the  history  of  Christ  in  perfect  harmony  with 
what  is  found  in  the  Gospels,  sometimes  agreeingr  in  words, 
and  always  in  meaning.  It  is  remarkable,  that,  ip  so  early  a 
writer  as  Justin,  there  is  so  little  matter  additiona)  to  what  is 

*  Fabricii  Cod.  Apoc.  N.  T.,  torn.  i.  pp.  330,  331. 

t  Stromat.,  lib.  i.  §  24,  p.  416.     Comp.  lib.  iv.  §  6,  p.  57J*. 

I  De  Orat.,  §  2  et  §  14;  0pp.  i.  197  et  219. 

§  Comment,  in  Matt,  torn.  xiii.  §  2;  Opp.  iii.  573. 


132  EVIDENCES    OF    THE 

contained  in  the  Gospels  ;  so  little  which  one  can  suppose  to 
be  derived  from  any  other  source.  That  we  find  what  we  do, 
presents  no  marvel  nor  difficulty.  The  phenomenon  to  be 
accounted  for  is,  that  we  find  no  more ;  and  of  this  phenome- 
non the  only  satisfactory  explanation  is,  that  the  Gospels  had 
come  down  from  the  apostolic  age  with  such  a  weight  of 
authority,  there  was  such  an  entire  reliance  on  their  credi- 
bility, that  it  was  generally  felt  to  be  unwise  and  unsafe  to 
blend  any  uncertain  accounts  with  the  history  contained  in 
them.  Such  accounts,  therefore,  were  neglected  and  for- 
gotten.    The  Gospels  extinguished  all  feebler  lights. 

In  what  precedes,  we  have  examined  the  objections  to  the 
conclusion  that  Justin  quoted  the  Gospels.  We  will  now 
attend  to  the  arguments  in  proof  of  this  fact. 

I.  In  other  cases,  where  we  find  such  an  agreement  of 
thoughts  and  words  as  exists  between  the  passages  quoted 
by  Justin  and  passages  of  the  Gospels,  particularly  of  Mat- 
thew and  Luke,  no  doubt  is  entertained  that  the  volume  thus 
furnishing  a  counterpart  to  certain  citations  was  the  work 
cited.*  The  presumption  arising  from  this  agreement  is  to 
be  overborne  only  by  the  strongest  objections,  founded  on 
some  striking  peculiarity  in  the  case.  Nothing,  however,  has 
been  opposed  to  it  but  the  conjecture,  that  there  may  have 
been  some  work  extant  in  the  time  of  Justin,  as  nearly  allied 
in  character  to  the  first  three  Gospels  as  any  one  of  these  is 
to  either  of  the  others ;  and  that  Justin  quoted  this  work,  and 
not  the  Gospels. 

But,  in  regard  to  any  book  which  Justin  may  be  conjectured 

*  The  coincidence  is  particularly  striking  in  several  citations  from  the 
01 1  Testament,  common  to  St  Matthew  and  Justin,  in  which  the  latter  writer 
appears  to  have  followed,  Avholly  or  in  part,  the  Greek  Gospel  of  the  fonner; 
though  the  passages,  as  they  stand  in  that  Gospel,  agree  neither  with  the 
Septuagint  nor  the  Hebrew. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  133 

to  have  quoted,  it  must  answer  to  the  following  conditions : 
It  must  have  been  one  which  he  and  other  Christians  believed, 
or  professed  to  believe,  "  written  by  apostles  and  companions 
of  apostles  ; "  it  must  have  been  of  the  highest  authprity 
among  Christians,  —  a  sacred  book,  read  in  their  churches ; 
it  must  have  been  the  work  to  be  appealed  to  as  containing 
those  facts,  doctrines,  and  precepts  on  which  they  formed 
their  lives ;  and  it  must,  immediately  after  he  wrote,  have 
fallen  into  entire  neglect  and  oblivion ;  for  no  mention  of  it, 
or  allusion  to  it,  as  quoted  by  him,  is  discoverable  in  any 
writer  who  succeeded  him.  But  it  is  impossible  to  believe 
all  these  propositions  to  be  true  of  any  book. 

The  supposition  of  some  one  book,  different  from  the  Gos- 
pels, has  been  resorted  to  by  those  who  have  maintained  that 
Justin  did  not  quote  the  Gospels ;  though  they  have  not 
agreed  among  themselves  in  their  conjectures  as  to  what  this 
book  might  be.  But  this  supposition  is  irreconcilable  with 
the  language  of  Justin,  which  implies  that  he  quoted  a  num- 
ber of  books,  as  I  shall  remark  more  particularly  hereafter. 
Should  it,  in  consequence,  be  maintained  that  he  used  a  num- 
ber of  books  different  from  the  Gospels,  the  objections  just 
urged  would  apply  with  even  greater  force,  if  possible,  to 
this  supposition  than  to  that  of  a  single  book.  No  plausible 
hypothesis,  therefore,  can  be  framed  to  detract  from  the  evi- 
dence afforded  by  the  correspondence  of  Justin's  quotations 
with  the  contents  of  the  Gospels. 

These  quotations  principally  correspond  to  passages  in  the 
Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke.  But  if  Justin,  and  the  Chris- 
tians contemporary  with  him,  received  those  Gospels  as  works 
of  the  highest  authority,  we  may  confidently  infer  that  they 
received  the  other  two  Gospels  as  bearing  the  same  character. 
Had  they  not  done  so,  it  is  impossible  that  the  Gospels  of 
Mark  and  John  should  have  been  so  regarded  by  their  younger 
contemporaries,  the  Christians  of  the  time  of  Irenteus.  We 
have  before  attended  to  the  consideritions  which  show,  that 


134  EVIDENCES    OF   THE 

such  an  event  could  not  have  occurred ;  that  if  the  authority 
of  two,  or  of  one,  of  the  Gospels  were  established  in  the  Chris- 
tian community,  this  would  present  a  decisive  obstacle  to  the 
reception  of  any  other,  which  had  not  always  been  regarded 
as  having  like  authority.* 

In  respect  to  the  use  made  by  Justin  of  the  Gospels  of 
Mark  and  Jolm,  it  may  be  observed,  that  Mark  records  but 
few  discourses  of  our  Saviour,  and  has  very  little  which  is 
not  common  to  him  with  Matthew  or  Luke,  except  some 
additional  circumstances  in  the  relation  of  particular  facts, 
not  of  a  character  to  be  noticed  in  giving  a  general  view  of 
the  history  and  doctrines  of  Christianity.  His  language, 
likewise,  when  different,  being  commonly  inferior-  to  that  of 
Matthew  and  Luke,  Justin  would  naturally  prefer  their  ex- 
pressions. But,  as  we  have  seen,t  he  has  mentioned  two 
facts  recorded  only  by  Mark,  and  that  with  an  almost  explicit 
reference  to  his  particular  Gospel. 

From  John's  Gospel,  Justin  derived  his  doctrine  of  the 
incarnation  of  the  Logos  in  Christ,  —  a  doctrine  which  must 
have  been  founded  on  the  first  verses  of  that  Gospel.  The 
conception  of  the  Logos,  indeed,  was  familiar  before  the  time 
when  either  Justin  or  St.  John  wrote  ;  but  the  doctrine  of  the 
incarnation  of  the  Logos  in  Christ  must  have  rested  wholly 
on  the  passage  referred  to.  Accordingly,  Justin  speaks  in 
language  similar  to  that  of  St.  John,  of  "  the  Logos  having 
been  made  flesh."  t  He  has  likewise  other  conceptions  and 
turns  of  expression  apparently  derived  from  John's  Gospel. 
He  represents  John  the  Baptist  as  having  said,  "  I  am  not 
the  Christ."  §  He  justifies  Christians  for  not  keeping  the 
Jewish  sabbath,  "because  God  has  carried  on  the  same  ad- 
ministration of  the  universe  during  that  day  as  during  all 


*  See  before,  pp.  102-107.  f  See  before,  p.  118. 

X  Apolog.  Prim.,  p.  62.     John  i.  14. 

§  Dial,  cum  Tryph.,  p.  332.    John  i.  20;  iii.  28. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        135 

others ; "  *  a  thought  so  remarkable,  that  there  can  be  little 
doubt,  that  he  borrowed  it  from  what  was  said  by  our  Saviour, 
wheu  the  Jews  were  enraged  at  his  having  performed  a 
miracle  on  the  sabbath:  "My  Father  has  been  working 
hitherto,  as  I  am  working."  f  And,  in  the  last  place,  he 
states,  that  "  Christ  said,  '  Unless  ye  be  born  again,  ye  can- 
not enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ; '  "  adding,  with  allusion  to 
the  words  of  Nicodemus,  that  "  it  is  evidently  impossible  for 
those  once  born  to  enter  into  their  mother's  womb."  $ 

II.  That  Justin  made  use  of  the  Gospels,  appears  from  the 
fact  that  there  is  no  intimation  to  the  contrary  in  the  whole 
numerous  succession  of  subsequent  Christian  fathers.  We 
have  the  evidence  of  Eusebius  in  the  fourth  century,  and  of 
Photius  in  the  ninth,  that  his  works  were  well  known,  and 
held  in  high  esteem.  They  are  referred  to  with  respect  by 
several  of  the  principal  fathers.  But  his  quotations  excited 
no  attention,  as  presenting  any  unexpected  appearance,  or  as 
a  matter  of  any  difficulty  or  curiosity.  If  he  had  quoted 
histories  of  Christ  different  from  the  Gospels,  it  is  incredible 
that  the  fact  should  have  escaped  the  knowledge  of  all  ancient 
writers  after  his  time ;  or  that,  being  known,  it  should  not 
have  been  adverted  to. 

III.  The  description  given  by  Justin  of  the  books  which 
he  used  shows  that  those  books  were  the  Gospels.  He 
appeals  to  several  books.  He  speaks,  not  of  one,  but  of 
several  authors.  "  Those,"  he  says,  "  who  have  written  me- 
moirs concerning  every  thing  relating  to  our  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ,  whom  we  believe  ;  "  —  "  Memoirs,  which  I  affirm  to 
be  composed  by  the  apostles  of  Christ,  and  their  com- 
panions ; "  —  "  Memoirs  composed  by  the  apostles,  which  are 


*  Dial,  cum  Tryph.,  pp.  194,  195.  f  John  v.  17. 

J  Apolog.  Prim.,  p.  89.     John  iii.  3,  4. 


136  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

called  Gospels."*  These  passages,  taken  in  connection,  ap- 
pear, without  any  other  evidence,  to  be  decisive  of  the  point 
in  question.  It  is  hardly  to  be  contended,  that  books  extant 
in  the  time  of  Justin,  which  were  called  Gospels,  and  which 
were  written,  or  were  supposed  to  be  written,  by  apostles  of 
Christ  and  their  companions,  could  be"  any  other  than  our 
present  Gospels.f 

IV.  The  manner  in  which  Justin  speaks  of  the  character 
and  authority  of  the  books  to  which  he  appeals,  of  their 
reception  among  Christians,  and  of  the  use  which  was  made 
of  them,  proves  these  books  to  have  been  the  Gospels.  They 
carried  with  them  the  authority  of  the  apostles.  They 
were  those  writings  from  which  he  and  other  Christians 
derived  their  knowledge  of  the  history  and  doctrines  of 
Christ.  They  were  relied  upon  by  him  as  primary  and 
decisive  evidence  in  his  explanations  of  the  character  of 
Christianity.  They  were  regarded  as  sacred  books.  They 
were  read  in  the  assemblies  of  Christians  on  the  Lord's  day, 


*  See  before,  pp.  204,  207. 

t  It  deserves  remark,  that  Justin,  besides  sajnng  that  the  books  he  used 
were  called  Gospels,  twice  speaks  of  "  the  Gospel "  in  the  singular,  using  the 
article. 

He  represents  Tr^^pho  as  saying  (p.  156),  "  I  know  also  that  your  precepts 
in  what  is  called  the  Gospel  are  so  wonderful  and  weiglit}',  as  to  cause  a  sus- 
picion that  no  one  may  be  able  to  observe  them;  for  I  have  taken  the  pains 
to  read  them." 

In  the  other  passage  referred  to,  he  quotes  (p.  352)  Matt.  xi.  27,  as  being 
"  written  in  the  Gospel." 

In  both  passages,  the  force  of  the  article  in  Greek  is  the  same  as  in  Eng- 
lish. By  "  the  Gospel "  must  be  meant  some  particular,  well-known  book. 
But  it  is  not  to  be  imagined,  that,  in  the  time  of  .Justin,  any  history  of  Christ, 
not  one  of  the  four  Gospels,  was  thus  pre-eminently  distinguished  above  them 
by  the  title  of  "  the  Gospel,"  or  that  any  one  of  the  four  Gospels  was  so  dis- 
tinguished from  the  other  three.  No  conclusion  remains,  but  that  Justin  used 
the  term  "the  Gospel  "  in  a  sense  familiar  to  the  fathers  who  succeeded  him, 
as  denoting  the  four  Gospels  collective!}",  and  consequently  the  volume  in 
which  they  were  brought  together. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        137 

in  connection  with  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament.  Let 
us  now  consider  the  manner  in  which  the  Gospels  were 
regarded  by  the  contemporaries  of  Justin.  Irena^us  was  in 
the  vigor  of  life  before  Justin's  death ;  and  the  same  was 
true  of  very  many  thousands  of  Christians  living  when 
Irenoeus  wrote.  But  he  tells  us,  that  the  four  Gospels  are 
the  four  pillars  of  the  Church,  the  foundation  of  Christian 
faith,  written  by  those  who  had  first  orally  preached  the 
Gospel,  by  two  apostles  and  two  companions  of  apostles.* 
It  is  incredible  that  Irenaeus  and  Justin  should  have  spoken 
of  different  books.  We  cannot  suppose,  that  writings,  such 
as  the  Memoirs  of  which  Justin  speaks,  believed  to  be  the 
works  of  apostles  and  companions  of  the  apostles,  read  in 
Christian  churches,  and  received  as  sacred  books  of  the 
highest  authority,  should,  immediately  after  he  wrote,  have 
fallen  into  neglect  and  oblivion,  and  been  superseded  by 
another  set  of  books.  The  strong  sentiment  of  their  value 
could  not  so  silently,  and  so  unaccountably,  have  changed 
into  entire  disregard,  and  have  been  transferred  to  other 
writings.  The  copies  of  them  spread  over  the  world  could 
not  so  suddenly  and  so  mysteriously  have  disappeared,  that 
no  subsequent  trace  of  their  existence  should  be  clearly  dis- 
coverable. When,  therefore,  we  find  Irenteus,  the  contem- 
porary of  Justin,  ascribing  to  the  four  Gospels  the  same 
character,  the  same  authority,  and  the  same  authors,  as  are 
ascribed  by  Justin  to  the  Memoirs  quoted  by  him,  which 
were  called  Gospels,  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that 
the  Memoirs  of  Justin  were  the  Gospels  of  Irenceus. 

We  shall  next  consider  a  portion  of  the  evidence  for  the 
genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  to  be  gathered  from  a  still  earlier 
period. 

*  See  before,  p.  72,  seqq. 


CHAPTER    III. 

EVIDENCE    OF    PAPIAS. ST.    LUKE's    OWN    TESTIMONY    TO 

THE    GENUINENESS    OF   HIS    GOSPEL. 

Between  tlie  death  of  St.  John  and  the  time  when  Justin 
wrote,  —  an  interval,  probably,  of  about  fifty  years,  —  there 
were  very  few  Christian  writers  of  whose  works  any  remains 
are  extant.  It  was  a  period  of  distress  and  confusion.  Our 
religion,  left  upon  the  death  of  that  apostle  without  any 
powerful  and  distinguished  advocate,  was  struggling  for 
establishment  against  the  opposition  and  persecution  of  the 
world.  A  great  revolution  was  taking  place  in  the  minds 
of  those  who  had  been  acted  upon  by  the  preaching  of  the 
apostles.  Their  opinions,  like  their  circumstances,  were 
unsettled.  The  separation  or  the  union,  which  was  after- 
wards effected,  between  ancient  errors  and  the  new  doctrines 
of  our  faith,  was  as  yet  undecided.  Our  religion  had  not 
assumed  among  its  professed  followers  a  well-defined  charac- 
ter ;  and  its  sublime  truths  were  not  so  fully  comprehended 
as  when  men  had  become  more  familiar  with  the  conception 
of  them.  It  had  not  yet  secured  possession  of  the  minds 
and  hearts  of  many  converts  well  qualified  by  their  literary 
eminence  to  explain  and  defend  it.  These  causes  will 
account  for  the  few  remains  of  writers  from  among  the 
catholic  Christians  during  this  period ;  and  for  the  absence 
of  any  historical  notice  of  the  Gospels,  which  has  come 
down  to  our  times,  except  that  of  Papias. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         139 

Papias  I  have  already  had  occasion  to  mention.*  He  lived, 
it  may  be  recollected,  during  the  first  quarter  of  the  second 
century ;  and  was  acquainted,  as  he  informs  us,  with  many  of 
the  disciples  of  the  apostles.  He  wrote  a  work,  now  lost,  but 
of  which  some  fragments  are  preserved  by  Eusebius.  In  this 
work,  as  quoted  by  Eusebius,  Papias  mentions  the  Gospels 
of  Matthew  and  Mark.  He  says  that  he  received  much 
information  from  John  the  Presbyter;  and  gives  the  follow- 
ing account,  as  derived  from  him :  — 

*'  The  Presbyter  said,  that  Mark,  being  the  interpreter  of 
Peter,  carefully  wrote  down  all  that  he  retained  in  memory 
of  the  actions  or  discourses  of  Christ ;  not,  hoAvever,  in  order, 
for  he  was  not  himself  a  hearer  or  follower  of  the  Lord ;  but 
afterwards  was,  as  I  said,  a  companion  of  Peter,  who  taught  in 
the  manner  best  suited  to  the  instruction  of  his  hearers,  without 
making  a  connected  narrative  of  his  discourses  concerning  the 
Lord.  Such  being  the  case,  Mark  connnitted  no  errors  in  thus 
writing  some  things  from  memory ;  for  he  made  it  his  sole  object 
not  to  omit  any  thing  which  he  had  heard,  and  not  to  state  any 
thing  falsely."  f 

Of  Matthew,  Papias  says,  "Matthew  wrote  the  oracles  in 
the  Hebrew  language,  and  every  one  interpreted  them  as  he 
was  able."  t 

It  appears  from  these  passages,  that  the  Gospels  of  Mat- 
thew and  Mark  were  well  known  before  the  time  of  Papias, 
that  they  were  attributed  to  those  writers,  and,  being  regarded 
as  authentic,  were  venerated  as  oracles. 

In  the  commencement  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  we 
have  Luke's  own  testimony  to  the  genuineness  of  his  Gospel. 
The  historical  proof  that  the  first-mentioned  work  was  writ- 
ten by  him  is  confirmed  by  other  evidence,  so  satisfactory  as 


*  See  before,  pp.  36,  37.  t  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  iii.  c.  39. 

%  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  iii.  c.  39. 


140  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

to  leave  no  reasonable  doubt  on  the  subject.*  We  have, 
then,  Luke's  own  testimony  that  he  was  the  author  of  a 
history  of  Christ.  But  as  no  one  will  adopt  so  absurd 
a  supposition  as  that  the  history  which  he  wrote  has  been 
lost,  and  another  substituted  in  its  place,  the  work  of  which 
he  speaks  must  be  our  present  Gospel. 

But  Luke's  testimony  not  only  establishes  the  genuine- 
ness of  his  Gospel :  it  has  a  further  bearing.  There  is  a 
striking  resemblance  between  his  Gospel  and  those  of  Mat- 
thew and  Mark.  There  are,  likewise,  many  striking  points 
of  resemblance  between  the  character  and  situation  of  the 
former  writer  and  the  two  latter.  They  had  similar  oppor- 
tunities for  information  respecting  all  the  common  objects  of 
knowledge ;  the  influences  of  our  faith  had  produced  in  them 
similar  feelings  and  conceptions ;  they  were  all  placed  in 
circumstances  the  most  extraordinary,  and  peculiar  to  a  few 
individuals  ;  they  all  belonged  to  the  small  class  of  the  first 
missionaries  of  our  religion.  One  of  them  is  supposed  to 
have  been  an  eye-witness  of  many  of  the  facts,  and  a  hearer 
of  many  of  the  discourses,  which  he  records ;  and  the  other 
two  are  believed  to  have  derived  their  information  from 
those  who,  like  him,  were  companions  of  our  Lord.  When, 
therefore,  we  find  that  a  work  of  a  very  remarkable  charac- 
ter was  written  by  Luke,  and  that  two  other  works  distin- 
guished by  the  same  characteristics  are  ascribed  to  Matthew 
and  Mark,  there  arises  a  strong  presumption  that  they  have 
been  ascribed  to  their  true  authors.  No  objection  can  be 
brought  against  the  genuineness  of  the  two  latter  histories, 
stronger  than  those  which  may  be  adduced  against  the  genu- 
ineness of  the  former.  In  one  case,  we  find  that  tnese 
objections  are  unfounded :  we  have  therefore  good  icuaon  to 
believe  that  they  are  equally  unfounded  in  the  othr.r, 

*  See  before,  pp.  89-91. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  141 

Here,  likewise,  we  would  recur  to  the  considerations  before 
presented,*  which  show  that  the  proof  of  the  genuineness 
of  any  one  of  the  Gospels  involves  the  proof  of  the  genuine- 
ness of  all.  The  argument  that  has  been  brought  forward, 
when  reduced  to  its  simplest  form,  is  nothing  more  than  an 
obvious  truth,  which  may  be  thus  stated :  Supposing  any 
body  of  men  to  possess  an  account  of  events  esteemed  by 
them  of  the  greatest  interest  to  themselves  and  to  the  world, 
to  know  that  this  account  was  the  work  of  an  author  whom 
they  hold  in  the  highest  respect,  to  believe  him  to  have  had 
the  most  satisfactory  means  of  information,  and  to  regard  his 
work,  therefore,  as  entitled  to  the  fullest  credit,  and,  still 
more,  to  a  sacred  character ;  and  supposing  them,  further,  to 
be  placed  in  circumstances,  which  alone,  even  without  any 
careful  scrutiny  on  their  part,  almost  exclude  the  possibility 
of  deception,  —  these  men  will  not  receive,  as  likewise  en- 
titled to  the  fullest  credit  and  to  a  sacred  character,  another 
account,  a  fraudulent  work,  falsely  ascribed  to  some  vener- 
ated name,  falsely  pretending  to  an  authority  to  which  it  has 
no  claim,  and,  at  the  same  time,  in  more  or  fewer  respects, 
irreconcilable  with  that  which  has  been  received  as  the  truth. 

The  Gospel  of  Luke,  then,  came  down  from  the  apostolic 
age  as  his  work,  with  his  own  attestation  to  its  genuineness. 
This  being  so,  the  other  three  Gospels  could  not  have  ob- 
tained reception  as  sacred  books,  in  common  with  it,  if  they 
had  not  been  the  works  of  the  authors  to  whom  they  were 
ascribed. 

Confining  our  view  merely  to  the  evidence  presented  in 
this  chapter,  we  may  regard  the  result  of  it  under  still 
another  aspect.  Luke  testifies  to  the  genuineness  of  his 
own  Gospel ;  Papias,  to  that  of  the  Gospels  of  Matthew  and 
Mark:  it  follows  that  the  authority  of  all  three  was  estab- 

*  See  before,  pp.  102-107. 


142        GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS. 

lished  in  the  time  of  Papias.  Now,  tliis  was  a  period  but 
just  after  the  death  of  St.  John,  when  thousands  were  living 
who  had  seen  that  last  survivor  of  the  apostles,  many  per- 
haps who  had  made  a  pilgrimage  to  Ephesus  to  behold  his 
countenance  and  listen  to  his  voice,  and  hundreds  who  be- 
longed to  the  church  over  which  he  had  presided  in  person. 
It  is  incredible,  therefore,  that,  before  the  time  of  Papias,  a 
spurious  gospel  should  have  been  received  as  his  work ;  and 
after  the  time  of  Papias,  when  the  authority  of  the  first  three 
Gospels  was  established,  the  attempt  to  introduce  a  gospel 
falsely  ascribed  to  St.  John  must  have  been,  if  possible,  still 
more  impracticable. 

Here,  then,  we  finish  the  statement  of  the  direct  historical 
evidence  for  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  from  their  re- 
ception by  the  great  body  of  Christians.^  We  will  hereafter 
consider  what  may  be  inferred  from  the  use  made  of  them  by 
the  earlier  heretical  sects. 


*  It  has  been  customary,  in  treating  the  subject  before  us,  to  allege  the 
supposed  testimony  of  certain  writings  ascribed  to  contemporaries  of  the  apos- 
tles, and  called  Writings  of  Apostolical  Fathers.  But  nothing  has,  in  my 
opinion,  contributed  more  to  give  a  false  and  unfavorable  impression  of  the 
real  nature  and  strength  of  the  evidence  for  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels. 
On  this  subject,  see  Note  C,  pp.  545-569. 


CHAPTER    lY. 

CONCLUDING    REMARKS    ON    THE    DIRECT    HISTORICAL    EVI- 
DENCE   OF    THE    GENUINENESS    OF    THE    GOSPELS. 

Such,  as  we  have  seen,  is  the  direct  historical  evidence  of 
the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels.  The  confirmation  it  receives 
from  the  manner  in  which  they  were  regarded  by  the  earlier 
heretical  sects  is  still  to  be  considered ;  and  likewise  all  that 
proof  to  be  derived  from  the  Gospels  themselves,  which 
makes  it  evident,  that  they  could  have  been  written  only  by 
individuals  bearing  the  character,  and  placed  in  the  circum- 
stances, of  those  to  whom  they  are  ascribed.  For  the  present, 
we  confine  our  attention  to  the  direct  historical  evidence 
alone. 

In  regard  to  this,  the  nature  of  the  case  is  such,  that  no 
evidence  of  the  same  character,  or  of  the  same  weight,  can 
be  produced  for  the  genuineness  of  any  other  ancient  work, 
which  was  not,  like  them,  received  as  an  undisputed  book  of 
the  Christian  Scriptures.  It  is  the  testimony  of  a  great, 
widely  spread,  and  intelligent  community  to  a  fact  about 
which  they  had  full  means  of  information,  and  in  which  they 
had  the  deepest  interest.  It  is  their  testimony  to  the  genu- 
ineness of  books,  the  reception  of  which  as  authentic  would 
change  the  whole  complexion  of  their  lives ;  and  might,  not 
improbably,  put  at  hazard  life  itself,  or  all  that  they  had 
before  considered  as  rendering  life  desirable.     It  is  the  testi- 


144  EYIDENCES   OF   THE 

mony  of  Gentiles  to  their  belief  of  the  genuineness  and  truth 
of  books  derived  from  Jews,  —  books  regarded  with  strong 
dislike  by  a  great  majority  of  that  nation;  three  of  which 
were  not  in  common  use  among  those  few  Jews  who,  like 
them,  were  disciples  of  Christ;  and  all  of  which  were  so 
stamped  throughout  with  a  Jewish  character,  as  to  be  likely, 
at  first  view,  strongly  to  offend  their  prejudices  and  tastes. 

But  the  peculiar  nature  and  value  of  this  testimony  may 
be  laid  out  of  consideration.  The  fact  alone,  that  the  four 
Gospels  were  all  received  as  genuine  books,  entitled  to  the 
highest  credit,  by  the  whole  community  of  catholic  Christians 
dispersed  throughout  the  world,  admits  of  no  iBxplanation, 
except  that  they  had  always  been  so  regarded.  We  have 
begun  by  reasoning  from  their  reception  during  the  last 
quarter  of  the  second  century;  and  their  reception  at  that 
time  affords,  as  we  have  seen,  decisive  proof  of  the  estimation 
in  which  they  must  have  been  held  during  the  whole  pre- 
ceding interval  from  their  first  appearance.  But,  though  we 
may  entitle  this  proof  decisive,  yet,  like  all  other  probable 
reasoning,  it  admits  of  confirmation ;  and  we  have  seen  the 
confirmation  afforded  by  the  evidence  of  Justin  Martyr,  who 
gives  direct  proof,  that  the  authority  of  the  Gospels  was 
established  among  Christians  before  the  middle  of  the  second 
century.  I  say,  before  the  middle  of  the  second  century ; 
for,  though  this  M'as  the  precise  time  when  he  wrote  his  first 
Apology,  yet  his  testimony  must  be  considered  as  relating  to 
a  state  of  things  with  which  he  had  been  previously  con- 
versant. We  have  next  remarked  the  express  and  particular 
testimony  of  Papias  to  the  genuineness  of  two  of  the  Gospels, 
and  to  the  estimation  in  which  they  were  held  by  Christians. 
Then,  tracing  the  stream  of  evidence  back  to  its  very  source, 
we  have  seen  Luke's  own  attestation  to  the  genuineness  of 
his  Gospel.  And  in  connection  with  this,  and  with  the 
testimony  of  Papias,  we  have  attended  to  the  fact,  that  the 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  145 

acknowledged  genuineness  of  any  one  of  the  Gospels  must 
have  presented  an  insuperable  barrier  to  the  reception  of  any- 
spurious  gospel  as  a  work  of  like  authority.  The  testimony 
to  the  genuineness  of  any  one  of  the  Gospels  is  virtually  a 
testimony  to  the  genuineness  of  all ;  and  the  testimony  to 
their  genuineness  is  a  testimony  to  their  reception  by  all 
catholic  Christians  wherever  they  had  become  known. 

But,  in  regard  to  our  present  argument,  it  is  unimportant 
what  period  an  objector  may  fix  upon  for  the  general  recep- 
tion of  the  Gospels  as  genuine.  The  later  the  period  as- 
signed for  this  event,  the  more  obviously  incredible  does  it 
become  that  it  should  have  taken  place,  on  the  supposition 
that  the  Gospels  were  not  received  from  the  beginning  in  the 
character  which  they  afterwards  bore.  The  longer  the  Chris- 
tian community  had  existed  without  a  knowledge  of  the 
Gospels,  or  without  a  belief  in  their  genuineness,  the  more 
difficult  must  it  have  been  to  produce  this  belief,  and  to 
cause  them  to  be  recognized  as  books  of  the  hisrhest  value 
and  authority.  Let  us  suppose  that  they  were  not  so 
regarded  till  the  last  quarter  of  the  second  century.  Their 
general  recognition  at  that  period  becomes  a  most  remarka- 
ble phenomenon.  Some  very  effective  cause  or  causes  must 
be  assigned  for  it,  sufficient  to  explain  how  four  spurious 
books,  not  before  known,  or  known  only  to  be  rejected, 
should  suddenly  have  obtained  universal  acceptance  through- 
out the  Christian  world,  as  containing  the  truths  fundamental 
to  a  Christian's  belief.  No  trace  of  any  causes  capable  of 
producing  this  result  can  be  discovered  or  imagined.  In  the 
nature  of  things,  it  is  impossible  that  such  causes  should 
have  existed.  The  Christians  of  that  age  professed  to  re- 
ceive the  Gospels  as  genuine  and  authentic,  on  the  ground 
that  they  had  always  been  so  regarded.  The  truth  of  this 
fact  is  the  only  explanation  which  can  be  given  of  the  uni- 
versal respect  in  which  they  were  then  held. 

10 


146  EVIDENCES    OF   THE 

It  appears,  therefore,  that  the  evidence  of  the  genuineness 
of  the  Gospels  is  of  a  very  different  character  from  what  we  ' 
are  able  to  produce  for  the  genuineness  of  any  ancient  classi- 
cal work.  Very  few  readers,  I  presume,  could  at  once  recol-. 
lect  and  state  the  grounds  on  which  we  believe  the  Epistles 
to  Atticus  to  liave  been  written  by  Cicero,  or  the  History  of 
the  Peloponnesian  War  by  Thucydides.  But  should  any 
writer  undertake  to  impugn  the  genuineness  of  these,  or  of 
many  other  ancient  works  that  might  be  named,  in  the  man- 
ner in  which  attempts  h  ive  been  made  to  weaken  the  histori- 
cal argument  for  the  genuineness  of  the  Gosjiels,  he  would 
hardly  succeed  even  in  gaining  a  discreditable  notoriety. 

But  there  are  objections  derived  from  the  Gospels  them- 
selves, which  are  relied  upon  as  doing  away  the  whole  force 
of  the  historical  argument.  It  is  urged,  that  the  contents  of 
one  Gospel  are  irreconcilable  with  those  of  another,  and 
therefore  that  the  Gospels  could  not  be  the  works  of  well- 
informed  narrators.  By  the  opponents  of  Christianity,  the 
errors  of  theologians  are  commonly  confounded  with  the  truths 
of  our  religion  ;  and,  so  tar  as  the  objection  just  mentioned 
rests  on  any  tenable  grounds,  it  bears,  not  against  the  authen- 
ticity and  genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  but  against  the  doctrine 
that  they  were  written  by  miraculous  inspiration.  It  would 
be  an  extraordinary  fact,  if  these  books  presented  on  their 
face  decisive  objections  to  their  own  credibility,  which  had 
been  overlooked  for  eighteen  centuries  by  intelligent  Chris- 
tians engaged  in  their  study.  To  any  one,  indeed,  who  is 
capable  of  a  just  apprehension  of  the  proof  of  the  genuineness 
of  the  Gospels,  afforded  by  their  intrinsic  character,  nothing 
can  appear  more  idle  than  such  an  attempt  to  prove,  from 
their  contents,  that  they  could  not  have  been  written  by  the 
authors  to  whom  they  are  ascribed. 

But  there  is  another  objection  drawn  from  the  essential 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        147 

character  of  the  Gospels,  which  is,  in  fact,  the  root,  and 
furnishes  the  sap  and  strength,  of  all  others  which  have  been 
urged  against  them.  They  contain  the  history  of  a  miracu- 
lous dispensation ;  and  a  miracle,  it  is  asserted,  is  impossible. 

This  objection,  if  it  can  be  maintained,  is  final,  not  merely 
in  regard  to  the  truth  of  the  Gospels,  and  the  truth  of  Chris- 
tianity, but  in  regard  to  the  truth  of  all  religion. 

The  assertion,  that  a  miracle  is  impossible,  and,  conse- 
quently, that  such  a  miraculous  intervention  of  the  Deity  as 
Christianity  supposes  is  impossible,  must  rest  for  support 
solely  on  the  doctrine,  that  there  is  no  God,  but  that  the 
universe  has  been  formed  and  is  controlled  by  physical  pow- 
ers essential  to  its  elementary  principles,  which,  always 
remaining  the  same,  must  always  produce  their  effects  uni- 
formly, according  to  their  necessary  laws  of  action.  This 
being  so,  a  miracle,  which  would  be  a  change  in  these  neces- 
sary laws,  is  of  course  impossible. 

But  when  we  refer  the  powers  operating  throughout  the 
universe  to  one  Being,  as  the  source  of  all  power,  and  ascribe 
to  this  Being  intelligence,  design,  and  benevolence,  —  that  is, 
when  we  recognize  the  truth  that  there  is  a  God,  —  it  becomes 
the  extravagance  of  presumptuous  folly  to  pretend,  that  we 
may  be  assured,  that  this  Being  can  or  will  act  in  no  other 
way  than  according  to  what  we  call  the  laws  of  nature ;  that 
he  has  no  ability,  or  can  have  no  purpose,  to  manifest  him- 
self to  his  creatures  by  any  display  of  his  power  and  goodness 
which  they  have  not  before  witnessed,  or  do  not  ordinarily 
witness. 

The  assertion,  therefore,  that  a  miracle  is  impossible,  can 
be  maintained  by  no  coherent  reasoning,  which  does  not 
assume,  for  its  basis,  that  all  religion  is  false ;  that  its  fun- 
damental doctrine,  that  there  is  a  God,  is  untrue.  The  con- 
troversy respecting  it  is  not  between  Christianity  and  atheism: 
it  is  between  religion,  in  any  form  in  which  it  may  appear, 
and  atheism. 


148  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

One  may,  indeed,  give  the  name  of  God  to  the  physical 
powers  operating  tliroughout  the  universe,  considered  col- 
lectively, or  to  some  abstraction,  —  as  the  moral  law  of  the 
universe,  for  example,  —  or  to  some  conception  still  more  un- 
substantial and  unintelligible,  and  thus  contend  that  he  does 
not  deny  the  existence  of  God.  But  there  is  only  one  view 
which  an  honest  man  can  take  of  the  deception  which  in  this 
and  other  similar  cases  has  been  attempted  through  a  gross 
abuse  of  words,  by  which  their  true  meaning  is  razed  out,  and 
a  false  meaning  forced  upon  them.  In  contending  with  irre- 
ligion,  we  have  a  right  to  demand  that  we  shall  not  be  mocked 
with  the  language  of  religion. 

But  the  fact  has  been  overlooked,  that,  supposing  the  propo- 
sition to  be  admitted,  that  a  miraculous  intervention  of  the 
Deity  is  impossible,  it  would  have  no  bearing  on  our  imme- 
diate subject.  No  inference  could  be  drawn  from  it  to  show, 
that  the  Gospels  were  not  written  by  those  to  whom  they  are 
ascribed. 

The  first  disciples  of  our  Lord,  the  first  preachers  of  his 
religion,  whether  their  account  was  true  or  false,  taught  that 
he  was  a  messenger  from  God,  whose  authority  was  continu- 
ally attested  by  displays  of  divine  power,  superseding  the 
common  laws  of  nature.  They  represented  Christianity  only 
under  tlie  character  of  a  dispensation  wholly  miraculous.  It 
has  come  down  to  us  bearing  this  character  from  the  first 
accounts  we  have  of  its  annunciation,  —  from  the  time  when 
St.  Paul  wrote  those  Epistles,  the  genuineness  of  which  can- 
not be  questioned.  The  fact  that  Christianity  is  a  miraculous 
dispensation  was  the  basis  of  his  whole  teaching,  and  equally 
of  the  teaching  of  the  other  apostles.  It  cannot  be  pretended, 
that  any  indication  is  to  be  found  of  its  having  been  presented 
to  men  under  another  character.  The  eff't  cts  which  followed 
its  preaching  are  such  as  could  have  resulted  only  from  such 
a  conception  of  it.     The  hypothesis,  therefore,  —  for  such  an 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.  149 

hypotliesis  has  actually  been  put  forward*  —  that  this  was 
not  the  original  character  of  Christianity  ;  that  its  first  preach- 
ers did  not  announce  it  as  a  miraculous  dispensation,  but  that 
some  time  during  the  lives  of  the  apostles,  or  immediately 
after,  it  assumed  this  character,  —  can  be  regarded  only  as 
one  of  the  most  extraordinary  of  those  exhibitions  of  human 
folly  which  liave  lately  been  given  to  the  world  as  specula- 
tions concerning  our  religion.  There  is  no  doubt,  that  the 
apostles  and  their  companions  represented  Christ  as  a  mes- 
senger from  God,  whose  divine  authority  was  attested  through- 
out his  ministry  by  miracles.  It  can  therefore  be  no  objection 
to  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  that  such  is  the  representa- 
tion to  be  found  in  them.  Whether  true  or  false,  it  is  the  only 
representation  that  was  to  be  expected  in  histories  of  Jesus 
given  by  apostles  and  their  companions. 

The  Gospels,  then,  contain  that  view  of  Christianity  which 
was  presented  by  its  first  preachers.  We  have  in  these  books 
that  solemn  attestation  which  was  borne  by  them,  and  was 
confirmed  by  circumstances  that  exclude  all  doubt  of  its  truth, 
to  facts  in  the  ministry  and  character  of  Christ  which  evince 
his  divine  mission. 

In  regard  to  men's  belief  in  Christianity,  and  their  appre- 
hension of  its  character,  the  present  is  an  age  of  transition. 
We  are  leaving  behind  us  the  errors  and  superstitions  of 
former  days,  with  all  their  deplorable  consequences,  —  the 
domination  of  a  priesthood,  tyranny  over  reason,  persecution, 
false  conceptions  of  morality  by  which  its  sanctions  were 
often  wholly  perverted,  and  that  disgust  toward  Christianity 
which  the  deformed  image  bearing  its  name,  and  set  up  for 
idol-worship,  was  so  fitted  to  produce.  But  through  a  revul- 
sion of  feeling,  occasioned  by  this  state  of  things,  many  of  the 

*  By  Strauss,  in  his  Leben  Jesu  (Life  of  Jesua 


150  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

clergy,  particularly  in  England,  —  one  is  reluctant  to  say 
many  priests,  though  this  is  a  title  which  they  readily  assume, 
—  have  turned  about,  and  are  travelling  back  into  the  dark 
region  of  implicit  faith,  Jesuitical  morality,  and  religious  for- 
malities, absurdities,  and  crimes.  On  the  other  hand,  there  is 
a  multitude  of  speculatists,  who,  in  the  abandonment  of  re- 
ligious error,  have  abandoned  religion  itself,  and  whose  only 
substitute  for  it,  if  they  have  any,  is  an  unsubstantial  spectre 
which  they  have  decorated  with  its  titles.  Meanwhile,  very 
many  enlightened  men,  who  have  been  repelled  from  the 
study  of  Christianity  by  the  imbecility  or  folly  of  those  who 
have  assumed  to  be  its  privileged  expositors  and  defenders, 
regard  it,  at  best,  only  with  a  certain  degree  o'f  respect,  as 
being,  perhaps,  a  noble  system,  if  properly  understood,  and 
one  the  belief  of  which,  even  under  the  forms  that  it  has 
been  made  to  assume,  is,  at  all  events,  useful  to  the  commu- 
nity.    Magnifica  qiddem  res  et  salutaris,  si  7nodo  est  uUa. 

In  order  that  we  may  pass  from  this  state  of  things  to  a 
better,  it  is  necessary  that  the  intellect  of  men  should  be 
awakened,  and  brought  to  exercise  itself  on  the  most  impor- 
tant subject  that  can  be  presented  to  its  examination.  The 
result  would  be  a  rational  and  firm  faith  in  Christianity,  with 
all  the  consequences  that  must  flow  from  such  a  faith.  The 
convictions  which  rest  on  reason  are  of  very  different  efficacy 
from  the  impressions  produced  through  prejudice,  imagina- 
tion, or  passion.  The  latter  may  lead  to  great  evil :  the  former 
can  produce  only  good.  There  is  a  sense  of  reality  attending 
the  convictions  of  reason,  which  makes  it  impossible  that  they 
should  not  penetrate  into  the  character.  Let  any  one,  in  the 
best  exercise  of  his  understanding,  be  persuaded  that  the  his- 
tory of  Jesus  Christ  is  true ;  that  the  miracle  of  his  mission 
from  God,  which  belongs  to  the  order  of  events  lying  beyond 
the  sphere  of  this  world,  and  concerning  the  whole  of  man's 
existence,  is  as  real  as  those  facts  which  take  place  in  this 
world,  conformably  to  the  narrow  circle  of  its  laws  with  which 


SENUINENFs'^S    OF   THE    GOSPELS.  151 

we  are  familiar,  —  and  he  has  become  intellectually,  and  can 
hardly  fail  to  become  moniMy,  a  new  being.  In  recognizing 
that  fact,  he  recognizes  his  relation  to  God,  or  rather,  if  I 
may  so  speak,  God's  relatio'^  to  him.  Life  assumes  another 
character.  It  is  not  a  short  period  of  existence  in  which  we 
are  to  confine  our  views  and  -desires  to  what  may  be  attained 
within  its  limits.  It  is  a  st'-xte  of  preparation  for  a  life  to 
come,  which  will  continue  ir'So  an  infinity  where  the  eye  of 
the  mind  is  wholly  incajmble  '^f  following  its  course.  Viewed 
in  the  broad  light  which  it  is  pours  in  upon  us,  their  false 
coloring  disappears  from  the  objects  of  passion ;  and  we  per- 
ceive that  there  is  nothi?^  i*  permanently  good,  but  what 
tends  to  the  moral  and  in^'llectual  progress  of  the  soul,  and 
nothing  to  be  dreaded  *^  essentially  evil,  but  what  tends 
to  impede  it. 


PART    III. 


ON   THE  EVIDENCE   FOR    THE    GENUINENESS    OF    THE   GOSPELS 
AFFORDED  BY   THE  EARLY  HERETICS. 


PAKT  in. 


CHAPTER   L 

PRELIMINARY     REMARKS. THE     EBIONITES. THEIR     USE 

OF  THE  GOSPEL  OF  MATTHEW  ONLY. INFERENCES  FROM 

THEIR   NOT   USING   THE    OTHER   THREE   GOSPELS. 

We  now  come  to  a  subject,  concerning  which  important  errors 
have  been  committed,  and  which  requires  a  more  thorough 
examination  than  it  has  hitherto  received.  It  is  the  manner 
in  which  the  Gospels  were  regarded  by  the  heretics  of  the 
first  two  centuries,  particularly  by  the  Gnostics. 

Beside  the  great  body  of  Christians,  the  Catholic  Chris- 
tians, as  they  may  be  denominated,  conformably  to  the  ancient 
use  of  the  term,  who  were  united,  notwitlistanding  many 
diversities  of  opinion,  in  the  general  reception  of  a  common 
system  of  faith,  there  were,  at  an  early  period,  various  sects 
called  Heresies.  The  generality  of  the  Heretics  of  the  first 
iwo  centuries  may  be  divided  into  two  principal  classes,  —  the 
Ebionites  and  the  Gnostics ;  and  these  two  classes  alone  are 
of  importance  as  furnishing  evidence  in  regard  to  the  genuine- 
Qess  of  the  Gospels. 

Of  the  Ebionites,  the  heretical  Jewish  Christians,  I  shall 
itate  in  sect.  ii.  of  Note  A,*  nearly  all  that  may  be  said  con- 

*  pp.  425-430. 


156  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

cerning  them  in  relation  to  the  present  subject.  They  were 
a  sect  that  attracted  but  little  notice  from  the  earlier  fathers  ; 
whose  accounts  of  them,  however,  are  explicit  and  consistent. 
The  discussions  concerning  them,  in  modern  times,  have  been 
founded  principally  on  the  confused,  contradictory,  and  obvi- 
ously very  inaccurate  statements  of  Epiphanius,  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  fourth  century.  But  all  the  ancient  accounts  of 
them  agree,  in  affirming,  that  they  used  the  Gospel  of 
Matthew  in  its  original  language,  with  a  text  more  or  less 
pure.  This  would  not  have  been  said  of  them,  had  they 
not  said  it  of  themselves.  They  comprehended,  as  appears, 
the  generality  of  Jewish  Christians,  and  were  the  successors 
and  representatives  of  those  early  converts  in  Judea,  who 
were  all  "  zealous  for  the  law,"  and  regarded  with  dislike 
or  distrust  the  preaching  of  St.  Paul.*  There  seems  to  have 
been  but  little  intermixture  among  them  of  those  Jews,  the 
Hellenists,  to  whom,  as  living  in  foreign  countries,  the  Greek 
lano-uao-e  was  often  more  familiar  than  that  of  their  own 
nation.  Thus,  using  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  which  was 
written  in  their  native  language,  and,  as-  there  seems  no 
doubt,  with  particular  reference  to  Jewish  Christians,  they 
neglected  the  other  Gospels.  Their  testimony,  in  receiving 
the  Gospel  of  Matthew  as  his  work,  is  blended  with  that  of 
the  common  mass  of  Christians.  Nor  is  it  important  to  urge 
it  any  further ;  but  it  may  be  worth  while,  here  as  elsewhere, 
to  keep  in  mind  those  considerations,  formerly  presented,! 
which  show  that  the  direct  proof  of  the  genuineness  of  any 
one  of  the  Gospels  is  an  indirect  proof  of  the  genuineness 
of  all. 

But  there  is  another  aspect  in  which  this  subject  is  to  be 
viewed.  The  fact,  that  the  Jewish  Christians  generally  did 
not  use  the  Gospels  of  Mark,  Luke,  and  John,  is  to  be  con- 


*  Acts  xxi.  20,  21.  t  pp.  102-107,  141. 


GENUINENESS    OF   THE    GOSPELS.  157 

sidered  in  connection  with  the  fact  of  the  reception  of  those 
Gospels  by  the  whole  body  of  Gentile  Christians.  We  have 
already  taken  notice  of  some  of  the  inferences  resulting  from 
this  consideration.*  But  the  subject  well  deserves  further 
consideration. 

Christianity  had  its  origin  among  the  Jews.  From  them 
it  was  communicated  to  the  Gentiles,  between  whom  and  the 
Jews  there  had  been  previously  a  wide  separation.  This 
separation  continued  between  the  Jewish  Christians  gene- 
rally and  the  Gentile  Christians.  With  the  exception  of 
the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  the  former  did  not  use  the  Gospels 
received  by  the  latter.  It  was  not,  therefore,  from  the  main 
body  of  Jewish  converts  that  the  Gentile  Christians  received 
the  books,  or,  to  say  the  least,  three  of  the  books,  which 
obtained  universal  reception  among  them,  as  genuine  and 
authentic  histories  of  Jesus.  But  these  books  did  not  have 
their  origin  among  the  Gentile  Christians.  They  are  evi- 
dently the  works  of  Jewish  writers. 

From  whom,  then,  and  when,  did  the  Gentile  Christians 
receive  them  ?  There  were  preachers  of  the  Gospel  to  the 
Gentiles,  —  like  St.  Paul  and  his  associates ;  like  Barnabas, 
the  early  friend  of  St.  Paul ;  like  Peter,  who  defended  their 
cause  before  the  assembled  Church  at  Jerusalem;  like  the  com- 
panion of  his  travels,  the  evangelist  Mark ;  and  like  John,  who 
spent  the  latter  part  of  his  life  among  them,  —  men  enlight- 
ened by  the  spirit  of  God,  who,  in  the  first  age  of  Christianity, 
communicated  its  great  truths  to  the  Gentiles,  and  called  upon 
them  to  embrace  it,  teaching  them  that  God  had  made  no 
difference  between  them  and  the  Jews  as  to  a  participation  of 
its  blessings.  These  early  missionaries  sent  by  God  broke 
through  the  inveterate  prejudices  of  their  nation ;  they  made 
an  opening  in  the  "  partition-wall "  which  separated  Gentiles 
from  Jews ;  and  from  them,  together  with  the  religion  itself, 

*  See  p.  107,  seqq.;  p.  50,  seqq. 


158  EVIDENCES    OF   THE 

must  the  Gospel  have  been  received  by  the  Gentile  Chris- 
tians. 

The  prejudices  which  had  been  broken  through  by  the 
apostles  and  their  associates  quickly  closed  round  the  remain- 
ing body  of  Jewish  Christians,  who  were  very  soon  regarded 
as  an  heretical  sect,  under  the  name  of  Ebionites.  After  the 
apostolic  age,  there  were  no  missionaries  from  their  number 
for  the  conversion  of  the  Gentile  world. 

St.  John  is  supposed  to  have  been  the  last  survivor  of  that 
noble  company  of  the  first  preachers  of  Christ  to  the  heathen 
world,  through  whom  we  who  are  not  Jews  by  descent  have 
received  the  blessings  of  our  religion.  Before  his  death,  the 
Jewish  nation  had  been  trampled  to  the  earth.  But  the  Gos- 
pels are  unquestionably  the  work  of  Jewish  authors.  This 
being  the  state  of  the  case,  it  is  a  supposition  utterly  in- 
credible, that,  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  (a.d.  70), 
three  writers  should  have  risen  up  among  the  Jews,  not  apos- 
tles nor  associates  of  apostles,  but  free  from  the  narrow  spirit 
of  their  nation,  and  zealous  for  the  conversion  of  the  Gen- 
tiles, who,  to  eifect  this  object,  composed  three  spurious  Gos- 
pels under  the  names  of  Mark,  Luke,  and  John.  But  the 
improbability  does  not  stop  here ;  for  it  must  further  be  sup- 
posed, that  these  three  anonymous  Jews  put  forward  their 
Gospels,  not  only  some  time  after  the  death  of  St.  John,  as 
well  as  of  the  other  two  pretended  authors,  but  some  time 
after  the  death  of  those  who  had  known  them  familiarly  ;  and, 
still  more,  that  those  Jews,  though  they  could  not  procure 
reception  or  countenance  for  their  works  among  their  own 
countrymen,  succeeded  effectually  in  deluding  the  whole  body 
of  Gentile  Christians  throughout  the  world,  —  though  it  must 
have  been  at  a  pretty  late  period  that  they  undertook  to 
accomplish  this  object. 

Such,  however,  are  the  suppositions  that  must  be  resorted  to, 
if  it  be  denied  that  the  Gospels  were  written  by  the  authors 
to  whom  they  are  ascribed,  and  passed  with  the  religion  itself  to 


GENUINENESS  OP  THE  GOSPELS.        159 

the  first  converts  from  heathenism,  sanctioned  and  certified 
by  its  earliest  missionaries.  The  undisputed  facts  relating  to 
the  history  of  the  Gospels,  especially  the  fact  that  three  of 
them  were  not  used  by  the  main  body  of  Jewish  Christians, 
make  it  evident  that  those  books  were  received  by  the  Gen- 
tile world  through  the  channel  of  the  first  preachers  of 
Christianity ;  that  they  were  received  from  apostles  and  their 
associates. 


CHAPTER    11. 

GENERAL  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  GNOSTICS.  —  STATE  OF  OPINION 
AMONG  THE  GREAT  BODY  OF  CHRISTIANS  DURING  THE 
SECOND    CENTURY. 

We  here  take  leave  of  the  Ebionites,  and  enter  on  a  much 
more  extensive  and  difficult  subject.  Our  attention  will  now 
be  confined  to  the  Gnostics. 

The  Greek  word  rendered  Gnostic  denoted,  in  its  primary- 
meaning,  an  enlightened  man ;  and  is  commonly  used  by 
Clement  of  Alexandria  to  signify  an  enlightened  Christian,  a 
Christian  philosopher.^  In  this  sense,  it  was  assumed  as  a 
designation  by  those  heretics  to  whom  the  name  is  now  re- 
stricted. The  heretical  Gnostics  were  divided  into  many- 
particular  sects ;  but  there  were  striking  characteristics  com- 
mon to  them  all,  by  which  they  were  distinguished  from  the 
great  body  of  Christians.  Their  religion  was  eclectic.  While 
some  of  their  contemporaries  among  the  Heathens,  of  a  similar 
cast  of  mind  to  their  own, — the  later  Platonists,  —  were  form- 
ing systems  in  opposition  to,  and  in  rivalship  of,  Christianity, 
they,  on  the  contrary,  incorporated  into  their  theology  the  his- 
torical facts  and  some  of  the  essential  doctrines  of  our  faith. 

*  This  meaning  survived  the  application  of  the  word  to  the  Gnostic  here- 
tics. In  the  Lexicon  ascribed  to  Zonaras,  who  lived  in  the  eleventh  and 
twelfth  centuries,  Vvuctlko^  (a  "Gnostic")  is  defined  to  be  "one  perfectly 
conformed  to  the  truth." 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  161 

In  the  systems  thus  composed  by  the  Gnostics,  foreign  as  they 
were  from  pure  Christianity,  the  ministry  of  Christ  held  a 
very  important  phxce.  It  was  the  key-stone  of  their  hypotheses. 

Some  of  tlie  leaders  of  the  Gnostic  sects  appear  to  have 
been  generally  regarded  in  their  day  as  men  of  more  than 
common  learning  and  ability ;  and  their  systems  were  so 
accordant  with  conceptions  and  habits  of  thinking  which  then 
prevailed,  as  to  obtain  a  considerable  degree  of  reputation 
and  credence.  Of  the  doctrines  maintained  by  them,  it  is 
necessary  to  our  purpose  to  give  some  general  account,  which, 
in  order  that  it  may  be  at  all  satisfoctory,  or  afford  ground 
for  a  correct  estimate  of  the  character  of  those  doctrines,  will 
lead  us  to  look  beyond  the  Gnostics  considered  in  themselves, 
and  to  view  them  in  their  relations  to  the  state  of  thino-s  in 
which  they  existed. 

By  the  generality  of  Christians,  they  were  regarded  as 
adversaries,  not  as  fellow-disciples ;  and  they,  in  return, 
looked  upon  the  many  as  unenlightened  followers  of  Christ, 
who  did  not  comprehend  the  essential  character  of  his  mission, 
were  ignorant  of  the  true  God,  whom  he  came  to  reveal,  and 
mistook  for  that  God,  who  had  been  before  unknown,  the 
inferior  being  who  was  the  god  of  the  Jews.  With  the  ex- 
ception of  the  Marcionites,  they  appear  generally  to  have 
considered  themselves  as  distinguished  from  all  others,  in 
their  original  conformation,  by  the  peculiar  possession  of  a 
spiritual  principle,  implanted  in  their  nature,  which  was 
a  constant  source  of  divine  illumination.  Thus,  in  examining 
into  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  the  early  Gnostics  pre- 
sent themselves  as  an  independent  set  of  witnesses,  widely 
separated,  in  their  opinions  and  feelings,  from  the  catholic 
Christians.  Their  doctrines  were,  at  the  same  time,  of  such 
a  character,  as  to  seem,  at  first  view,  to  admit  of  no  recon- 
ciliation with  the  contents  of  the  Gospels.  "It  was  impos- 
sible," says  Gibbon,  "  that  the  Gnostics  could  receive  our 
present  Gospels,  many  parts  of  which  (particularly  in  the 

11 


162  EVIDENCES    OF   THE 

resurrection  of  Clu'Ist)  are  directly,  and,  as  it  might  seem, 
designedly,  pointed  against  their  favorite  tenets."*  If,  not- 
withstanding this  supposed  impossibility,  we  should  find  that 
the  Gnostics  actually  bear  testimony  to  the  genuineness  of 
the  Gospels,  their  evidence  must  clearly  have  a  distinct  and 
peculiar  value. 

It  is  true,  that  other  sects,  whose  doctrines  may  appear  to 
an  intelligent  Christian  as  irreconcilable  with  the  contents  of 
the  Gospels  as  those  of  the  Gnostics,  have  been  zealous  in 
assertinii:  the  claim  of  those  books  to  the  hiiihest  deference. 
But  this  has  been  done  under  very  different  circumstances. 
The  systems  of  those  sects  have  been  slowly  formed,  during 
ages  of  ignorance  and  false  reasoning ;  the  true  sense  of  the 
language  of  the  Gospels  has  been  gradually  obliterated,  and 
false  meanings,  derived  from  a  barbarous  theology,  have  been 
substituted  in  its  place ;  the  considerations  necessary  to  be 
attended  to,  in  order  to  understand  the  words  of  Jesus,  have 
been  disregarded ;  and  thus,  the  key  to  their  true  explanation 
being  lost  or  thrown  away,  modes  of  interpretation  have  been 
introduced,  at  once  so  irrational  and  so  unsettled,  that,  by 
their  application,  the  Scriptures  may  be  made  to  speak  any 
doctrine.  Those  systems,  having  no  aid  from  reason,  but 
being  assailed  by  it  on  every  side,  have  been  obliged  to  rely, 
for  their  sole  support,  on  the  supposititious  meanings  assigned 
to  the  Scriptures ;  and  thus,  in  the  very  act  of  falsifying  the 
testimony  of  the  books  appealed  to,  it  has  become  essential 
to  maintain  their  credit.  At  the  same  time,  the  prevailing 
oelief  in  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  not  being  the  result 
of  any  investigation  of  the  subject,  had  assumed  the  charac- 
ter of  an  inveterate  and  unassailable  prejudice.  But  the  case 
01  the  Gnostics  was  widely  different.  Their  systems  were  in 
Harmony  with  many  of  the  i^hilosophical  speculations  of  their 

*  Decline  and  Full  of  the  Roman  Empire,  chap.  xv.  note  35. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  163 

age,  and  relied  for  support  upon  doctrines  already  received, 
rather  than  upon  the  misinterpretation  of  the  Scriptures.  If 
they  admitted  the  Gospels  as  genuine,  they  did  not  feel  obliged, 
in  consequence,  to  admit  their  authority  as  final :  they  ap- 
pealed to  other  sources  of  religious  knowledge,  to  their  own 
reasonings,  to  oral  tradition,  —  by  which  they  pretended  that 
the  higher  and  esoteric  doctrines  of  Jesus  had  been  trans- 
mitted to  them,  —  and  to  the  divine  light  within,  the  privilege 
of  their  spiritual  nature. 

But  it  is  particularly  to  be  observed,  that  the  earlier 
Gnostics  lived  at  a  time,  when,  if  the  Gospels  be  not  genuine, 
the  question  respecting  their  credit  and  value  must  have  been 
entirely  open  and  unsettled ;  that,  upon  the  supposition  of 
their  not  being  genuine,  they  were  works  of  the  contempo- 
raries of  those  Gnostics,  or  of  individuals  of  the  age  imme- 
diately preceding ;  and  that  their  late  origin,  therefore, 
must  have  been  so  notorious,  that  no  process  of  reasoning 
could  have  been  required  to  make  it  evident  that  tiiey  were 
not  genuine.  But,  in  rejecting  their  authority  on  such  indis- 
putable ground,  the  Gnostics,  instead  of  carrying  on  a  doubt- 
ful and  disadvantageous  contest,  would  have  gained  a  decisive 
triumph  over  their  opponents,  by  simply  pointing  out  the 
fact,  that  the  catholic  system  of  faith,  so  far  as  it  contradicted 
their  own,  was  founded  on  writings  pretending  to  an  authority 
which  they  did  not  possess. 

It  follows  from  what  has  been  said,  that  the  nature  and 
value  of  the  evidence  which  the  Gnostics  afford  for  the 
genuineness  of  the  Gospels  cannot  be  understood  and  cor- 
rectly estimated  without  some  acquaintance  with  their  history 
and  doctrines.  The  subject  is  worthy  of  investigation ;  and 
I  enter  the  more  readily  upon  the  explanation  of  it,  —  such 
explanation  as  it  may  be  in  my  power  to  give,  —  because  it 
is  not  only  necessary  to  my  present  purpose,  but  may  also 
open  to  us  new  views  of  the  history  of  opinions,  and  of  the 


164  EVIDENCES    OF   THE 

early  history  and  of  the  evidences  of  our  religion:  It  may 
be  well,  before  proceeding  farther,  to  advert  to  some  of  these 
bearings  of  the  inquiry. 

The  study  of  the  history  and  doctrines  of  the  Gnostics, 
connected  as  those  doctrines  were  with  the  morals  and 
philosophy  of  the  age,  and  giving  birth  to  controversies  in 
which  much  of  the  character  of  the  age  is  exhibited,  may 
enlarge  our  views  of  the  condition  of  the  world  when  Chris- 
tianity was  revealed ;  and  every  accession  to  our  knowledge 
concerning  the  intellectual  and  moral  state  of  men  in  those 
times  is  adapted  to  strengthen  our  conviction  of  the  divine 
origin  of  our  relio;ion. 

In  order  to  have  a  full  conception  of  the  evidences  and 
value  of  Christianity,  we  must  be  informed  of  the  state  of  the 
human  character  that  existed  at  the  time  of  its  introduction, 
and  with  which  it  had  to  struggle.  As  our  prospect  widens 
and  becomes  more  distinct,  we  may  be  reminded  of  the 
ancient  doctrine  of  the  East,  that  this  world  is  the  battle- 
field of  the  good  and  evil  spirits  who  divide  the  universe. 
The  power  of  our  religion  will  be  perceived  in  the  strength 
of  the  obstacles  over  which  it  triumphed.  Its  great  truths, 
in  their  own  nature  intelligible  as  they  are  sublime,  were 
then  "  dark  with  excessive  bright."  Men's  minds  were  over- 
whelmed by  their  grandeur  and  novelty,  and  could  not  open 
to  their  full  comprehension.  In  their  colossal  simplicity,  they 
stood  opposed  to  the  baseless  and  visionary  speculations 
which  then  passed  for  philosophy.  The  very  plainness  of 
their  evidence,  appealing  only  to  the  authority  of  God,  as 
made  evident  by  miraculous  displays  of  his  power,  was  in 
striking  contrast  with  the  reasoning  of  the  age,  resting  on 
dreams,  dealing  in  slippery  words,  and  full  of  shallow  subtil- 
ties.  The  morality  of  the  Gospel,  having  for  its  object  to 
free  the  individual  from  whatever  may  injure  himself  or 
others,  and  to  teach  him  that  his  highest  good  consists  in 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  165 

acting  for  the  common  good  of  all,  presented  itself  in  strange 
contrast  with  the  unabashed  selfishness,  the  loathsome  sensu- 
ality, the  rapacity,  violence,  and  cruelty,  which  overspread 
society.  This  morality  was,  at  the  same  time,  very  different 
from  that  magnificent  but  impracticable  scheme  which,  though 
fully  developed  only  by  the  Stoics,  was  presented  in  its  chief 
lineaments  by  all  the  higher  philosophy  of  the  age,  —  the  pro- 
fessed purpose  of  which  was  to  aggrandize,  and,  as  it  were, 
deify  its  disciple,^by  raising  him  above  all  passion  and  suffer- 
ing ;  to  teach  him,  as  the  sum  of  duty,  to  bear  and  to  forbear ; 
and  to  place  him  in  a  state  of  stern,  insulated  quiet,  unmoved 
by  all  around  him.  The  first  word  which  our  religion  ad- 
dressed to  men  was  "  Reform."  It  came  to  re-create  their 
characters,  to  change  them  in  their  own  view  from  earthly  to 
immortal  beings,  to  call  forth  new  affections,  to  supply  new 
principles  and  aims,  and  to  teach  "the  new  doctrine  of 
piety ; "  *  making  men  feel  what  they  had  not  before  con- 
ceived of,  —  their  relations  to  God.  By  revealing  him,  it 
came  to  annihilate  the  superstitions  of  the  heathen  world, 
blended  as  they  were  with  all  its  history,  philosophy,  elo- 
quence, and  poetry  ;  forming  an  essential  part  of  the  machi* 
nery  of  government,  entering  into  the  daily  habits  of  common 
life,  and  the  source  of  those  frequent  festivals,  games,  and 
shows,  which,  barbarous  and  licentious  as  they  often  were, 
afforded  to  the  many  their  most  exciting  pleasures.  A 
principle  was  at  work  which  had  to  contend  with  all  that 
existed  on  earth,  except  what  might  remain  uncorrupted  in 
the  moral  nature  of  man. 

The  strength  of  the  errors  that  were  to  be  overcome  may 
be  partially  estimated  by  their  continued  operation  to  the 
present  day,  appearing  in  false  doctrines,  which  were  gradu- 
ally introduced,  and  are  now  incorporated  with  the  professed 
faith  of  most   Christians ;    in   modern    systems   of  what  is 

*  1  Tim.  iii.  16. 


166  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

called  philosophy,  allied  in  thought  and  language  to  the  mys- 
ticism of  the  later  Platonists,  and  the  pantheism  of  other 
ancient  theologists ;  and  in  the  influences  of  pagan  history 
and  literature  upon  our  taste  and  morals,  in  changing  and 
debasing  that  standard  of  human  excellence  which  Christian 
ity  would  lead  us  to  form. 

Such  being  the  state  of  the  ancient  world,  the  conceptions 
of  our  religion  entertained  by  its  early  converts  were  not 
only  imperfect,  but  were  modified  and  cUscolored  by  the 
universal  prevalence  of  error.  These  converts  might  change 
their  hearts  and  lives,  but  they  could  not  renovate  their 
minds.  They  could  not  divest  themselves  of  the  whole 
character  of  their  age,  so  as  fully  to  comprehend  the  great 
truths  they  had  been  taught,  in  their  proper  bearing  upon 
the  conceptions  and  doctrines  prevailing  around  them.  They 
could  not  break  up  all  their  previous  associations  of  thought 
and  feeling,  originate  new  and  rational  systems  of  the  highest 
philosophy,  and  pursue  only  those  correct  modes  of  reason- 
ing, which,  even  at  the  present  day,  are  but  partially  under- 
stood, and  imperfectly  applied  to  all  subjects  connected  with 
our  moral  and  intellectual  nature.  They  could  not  at  once 
do  for  themselves  what  many  centuries  have  been  slowly 
effecting  for  the  wisest  of  modern  times. 

The  causes  which  operated  in  common  upon  Christian 
converts,  to  alloy  the  doctrines  of  our  faith  with  the  errors  of 
the  age,  produced  their  most  remarkable  effects  among  the 
Gnostics.  INIore  visionary  and  more  self-confident  than 
the  catholic  Christians,  they  relied  more  on  their  philosophy, 
and  less  on  the  written  records  of  our  religion.  Many  of 
tliem,  also,  were  among  the  mystics  of  those  times,  and 
trusted  for  guidance  to  their  divine  inward  light.  Hence, 
the  Gnostics  jiroceeded  to  extravagances,  from  which  the 
catholic  Christians  kept  aloof ;  but,  in  comparing  together 
the  distinctive  o})inions  of  the  two  jmrtieSj  we  shall  find  that 
their  conceptions  often  approximated   each  other,  and  that, 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         167 

with  essential  differences   of  doctrine,  there  were  also  re- 
markable analogies  and  coincidences. 

Thus,  though  the  Gnostic  doctrines  were  in  stronger  con- 
trast with  the  truths  of  Clu-istianity  than  the  errors  and 
misconceptions  of  the  catholic  Christians,  yet,  as  they  had 
ultimately  the  same  origin  or  occasion,  as  they  are  to  be 
traced  alike  to  the  false  notions  which  had  prevailed  in  the 
world,  eitlier  among  heathens  or  Jews,  their  history  may 
serve  to  bring  out  to  view  more  distinctly  the  direct  and 
indirect  operation  of  some  of  those  causes  of  error  which 
enthralled  the  minds  of  the  early  catholic  Christians ;  to 
make  us  apprehend  more  cleai-ly,  that  there  might  be,  and 
were,  many  conceptions  of  the  wisest  among  them  wliich  are 
not  to  be  confounded  with  the  doctrines  of  Christ ;  and  to 
enable  us  to  discern  the  real  derivation  of  opinions  that 
we  might  otherwise  ascribe,  as  tliey  have  been  ascribed,  to 
traditionary  explanations  or  to  mere  misconceptions  of 
our  faith.  It  is  in  a  great  measure  by  such  investigations 
that  Christianity  may  be  relieved  from  that  apparent  respon- 
sibility for  what,  in  fact,  are  but  the  errors  of  its  disciples, 
which,  at  the  present  day,  is  a  principal  obstacle  to  its  re- 
ception. 

It  is  true,  that  in  the  fundamental  opinions  of  the  early 
catholic  Christians,  as  the}^  appear  in  the  writings  of  the 
most  eminent  of  their  number  during  the  first  three  centu- 
ries, there  was  nothing  that  essentially  changed  the  character 
of  our  religion,  or  was  adapted  greatly  to  pervert  its  moral 
influence.  But  when  we  compare  their  writings  with  the 
New  Testament,  and  remark  the  operation  of  the  world 
around  them  on  their  sentiments  and  belief,  we  are,  if  I 
mistake  not,  irresistibly  led  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  re- 
ligion of  Christ,  the  religion  taught  in  the  Gospels,  did  not 
come  into  being  at  any  period  subsequent  to  his  time. 
Those  who  became  its  disciples  after  his  death  did  not  origi- 
nate what  they  but  imperfectly  and  erroneously  apprehended. 


168  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

They  were  not  the  authors  of  doctrines  or  of  books,  of  which 
they  were,  in  many  respects,  but  poor  expositors. 

Nor,  it  may  be  added,  did  Christianity  have  its  origin  in 
any  wisdom  of  a  preceding  age.  Distinguishable,  as  it  is, 
from  the  opinions  of  its  earlier  converts  respecting  it,  it 
stands  far  more  widely  separated  from  all  that  preceded 
it,  either  in  the  Jewish  or  Gentile  world.  There  is  nothing 
human  to  which  its  origin  can  be  traced.  When  we  under- 
stand the  Gospels,  and  enter  into  their  spirit;  when  we 
consider  their  teachings  respecting  God,  his  inseparable  re- 
lations to  all  his  creatures,  and  his  universal  providence  and 
love ;  their  disclosures  concerning  man's  immortality  and  the 
purposes  of  life,  our  duties  and  our  prospects  ;  •  their  narra- 
tive, as  consistent  as  it  is  wonderful,  and  their  unparalleled 
portraiture  of  moral  greatness  in  the  character  of  Jesus ;  and 
when  we  observe  that  these  histories  are  inartificial  and 
imperfect,  written  in  a  rude  style,  clearly  that  of  unedu- 
cated persons,  so  that  their  intrinsic  character,  even  in  this 
respect  alone,  precludes,  as  an  incredible  anomaly,  the  idea 
that  they  were  the  result  of  literary  skilJ,  the  study  of  phi- 
losophy, or  any  art  of  man,  —  it  becomes  evident  that  their 
existence  cannot  be  explained  by  any  thing  known  or  felt  on 
earth  before  the  events  which  they  record.  It  is  a  i)henome- 
non  marked  by  its  dissimilitude  from  all  around  it,  —  the 
unlikeness  between  the  things  of  time  and  eternity,  and,  if  I 
may  so  speak,  between  man  and  God. 

As  has  been  said,  the  religion  of  Christ  is  one  thing,  and 
the  religion  of  the  early  Christians  was  another.  But  this 
renders  it  the  more  necessary,  in  order  to  estimate  correctly 
the  character  of  the  early  fathers,  the  early  writers  of  emi- 
nence among  the  catholic  Christians,  that  we  should  not 
forget  the  strong  disturbing  forces  which  acted  upon  their 
minds  to  draw  them  from  the  sphere  of  Christian  truth. 
They  labored  under  great  disadvantages,  from  the  universal 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         169 

ignorance  of  the  Gentile  world  respecting  many  of  the  new 
subjects  presented  to  their  inquiry.     On  the  one  hand,  they 
were  biased  by  the  inveterate  errors  of  their  age;  and  on 
the  other,  so  far  as  those  errors  were  connected  with  licen- 
tiousness of  life,  they  were  repelled  by  them  to  the  opposite 
extreme  of  asceticism  in  speculation  and  practice,  —  an  ex- 
treme to  which,  also,  they  were  led  by  their  hard  circum- 
stances, as  members  of  a  suffering  and  persecuted  sect.     To 
iudge  them  fairly,  we  must  be  acquainted  with  the  principles, 
conceptions,  and  modes  of  reasoning,  which  characterized  the 
philosophy    of   their    times,   and    had    modified    all    existing 
'•*brms  of  thought,  having  been  transmitted  from  the  ancient 
jnhilosophers,  particularly  Plato,  with  the  whole  weight  of 
their  authority.     We  must  know  what  advances  the  human 
intellect  had  made,  comprehend  the  influences  under  which 
their  minds  had  been  formed,  and  compare  them,  not  with 
the  most  enlightened  men  of  modern  times,  who  have  en- 
joyed advantages  for  the  culture  of  the  understanding  which 
they  never  dreamed  of,  but  with  their  predecessors  and  con- 
temporaries.     We  must  view  them,  like   all  other  eminent 
men  of  ancient  days,  as  figures  in   the  age  to  which  they 
belong,  and  not  bring  them  prominently  forward,  surrounded 
only  by  modern  associajtions.     If  ignorant  of  the  philosophy 
of  their  age,  we  have  no  standard  by  which  to  judge  of  their 
intellectual  powers.     Nay,  we  shall  often  misunderstand  their 
meaning,  and  may  direct  our  contempt  or  ridicule,  not  against 
what  they  have    said,   but  against   our    own    misconception 
of  what  they  have  said.     Now,  the  doctrines  of  the  Gnostics 
will  show  us  what  extravagances  might  be  advanced  by  those 
who  were  reputed   able   and  learned   men   in   the   times  of 
which  we  speak  ;  and  such  is  the  connection  or  identity  of 
many  opinions  of  the  Gnostics  with  opinions  that  had  before 
been  held,  or  were  appearing  simultaneously  in  the  writings 
of  their  contemporaries,  that  we  cannot  study  their  systems 
without  being  led  to  look  beyond  them  to  the  philosophy 


170  EVIDENCES  OF   THE 

of  the  age ;  and,  in  doing  so,  we  shall  find  that  the  Christian 
fathers  suffer  as  little  by  a  comparison  with  the  heathen  phi- 
losophers, as  with  the  Gnostic  hereticj?.  Such  are  some  of 
the  considerations  incidentally  presented  to  us  in  the  inquiry 
on  which  we  are  now  about  to  enter. 

The  Gnostics  may  be  separated  into  two  great  divisions,  — 
the  Marcionites,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Theosophtc 
Gn(>stics,  as  they  may  be  called,  on  the  other;  this  epithet 
being  understood  as  referring  to  the  imaginations  of  the  latter 
respecting  the  Supreme  God,  and  the  spiritual  world,,  as 
developed  from  him.  Of  the  latter  class  the  Valentinians  are 
the  principal  representatives,  as  being  the  most  considerable 
and  numerous  sect,  and  one  the  essential  characteristics  of 
which  appear  throughout  the  systems  of  other  theosophic 
Gnostics.  The  fundamental  doctrines  held  in  common  by  the 
Valentinians  and  Marcionites  were  the  following :  That  the 
material  world,  the  visible  universe,  was  not  the  work  of 
the  Supreme  Being,  but  of  a  far  inferior  agent,  the  Demiur- 
gus,  or  the  Creator,*  who  was  also  the  god  of  the  Jews ;  that 
the  spiritual  world,  the  Pleroma,  as  it  was  called,  over  which 
the  true  Divinity  presided,  and  the  material  world,  the  realm 
of  tJie  Creator,  were  widely  separated  from  each  other ;  that 
evil  was  inherent  in  matter ;  that  the  material  world,  both  as 
being  material,  and  as  being  the  work  of  an  inferior  being, 
was  full  of  imperfection  and  evil ;  that  the  Saviour  descended 
from  the  spiritual  world,  as  a  manifestation  of  the  Supreme 
God,  to  reveal  him  to  men,  to  reform  the  disorders  here  exist- 


*  ^rifiiovpyog,  literally  the  "Workman."  The  term  "Maker"  might 
seem  the  preferable  rendering,  except  that  the  associations  with  the  word 
"  Creator,"  when  standing  alone,  correspond  better  with  the  conceptions  of 
the  Gnostics.  But,  in  thus  using  the  term  "Creator,"  we  must  divest  it 
of  the  idea  of  creation  from  nothing.  There  is  no  satisfactory  evidence,  that 
any  of  the  Gnostics  rejected  the  then  common  philosophical  notion  of  eternal, 
uncreated  matter. 


GENUINENESS   OP  THE  GOSPELS.  171 

ing,  and  to  deliver  whatever  is  spiritual  from  the  dominion  of 
matter;  and  that  the  Supreme  God  had  been  unknown  to 
men,  to  Jews  and  Heathens  equally,  before  his  manifestation 
of  himself  by  Christ.  In  their  view,  he  was  the  God  of  the 
New  Testament,  and  the  Creator  was  the  god  of  the  Old 
Testament.  They  at  the  same  time  conceived  of  the  Creator 
as  exercising  a  moral  government  over  men,  as  dispensing 
rewards  and  inflicting  punishments.  He,  in  their  view,  was 
"  Justr  But  the  Supreme  God  did  not  punish.  He  was  un- 
mingled  benevolence.     He  was  "  Good."" 

In  connection  with  these  doctrines,  neither  the  Valentinians 
nor  the  Marcionites  supposed  the  Saviour  to  have  had  a 
proper  human  body  of  flesh  and  blood,  in  which  corruption 
would  have  dwelt.  The  Valentinians,  however,  ascribed  to 
him  a  real  though  not  a  human  body,  while  the  Marcionites 
regarded  his  apparent  body  as  a  mere  phantom.  Those  who 
maintained  the  latter  opinion  were  called  Docetce,  a  name  for 
which  we  may  give  an  equivalent  in  the  word  Apparitionists. 
But  this  name  was  also  sometimes,  if  not  commonly,  ex- 
tended to  all  who  denied  that  Christ  had  a  proper  human 
body;  and,  thus  used,  comprehended  the  generality  of  the 
Gnostics. 

In  the  systems  of  the  Marcionites  and  Valentinians,  the 
Creator  appears  as  one.  Other  sects,  it  is  said,  believed 
the  material  world  to  have  been  formed  by  angels.  But, 
among  those  angels,  one  was  generally,  perhaps  universally, 
regarded  as  pre-eminent,  and  as  the  god  of  the  Jews ;  that  is, 
as  one  to  whom  the  name  Creator  may  be  distinctively  ap- 
plied. The  Valentinians  themselves  sometimes  spoke  of  the 
Creator  as  an  angel,  and  associated  with  him,  in  the  govern- 
ment of  his  works,  other  beings  whom  he  had  produced,  giv- 
ing them  also  the  name  of  angels. 

Such  were  the  common  doctrines  of  the  Gnostics.  Their 
ftmdamental  distinction  may  be  regarded  as  consisting  in  the 


172  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

belief,  that  the  material  universe  was  not  formed  by  the 
Supreme  Being,  but  by  some  inferior  being  or  beings  ;  and 
that  this  being,  or  one  of  these  beings,  was  the  god  of  the 
Jews.  In  the  writings  of  the  earlier  fathers  against  them, 
the  stress  of  the  controversy  concerns  this  topic.  It  was,  as 
we  might  suppose,  the  great  point  at  issue  between  them 
and  the  catholic  Christians. 

Thus,  Tertullian,  in  his  work  against  Marcion,  states  it  to 
be  "the  principal  question"*  between  them;  and  the  whole 
tenor  of  his  argument  shows  that  it  was  so.  The  principal 
question,  he  says,  in  commencing  his  work,  "  whence  the 
whole  controversy  arises,  is,  whether  it  be  allowable  to  intro- 
duce two  gods."  The  main  object  of  his  work  is  to  prove 
from  reason,  from  the  Old  Testament,  from  the  Gospels, 
and  from  the  Epistles,  that  the  Supreme  Being,  the  God  and 
Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  is  the  same  being  with  the 
Creator  of  the  material  universe,  and  the  God  of  the  Jews. 

Irena3us  is  our  great  authority  concerning  the  theosophic 
Gnostics,  of  whom  alone  he  treats,  to  the  exclusion  of  Mar- 
cion and  his  followers,  for  a  reason  to  be-  hereafter  mentioned. 
In  the  introduction  to  his  work,  he  assigns,  as  the  cause  of 
his  undertaking  to  write  against  the  heretics,  that  they  "  over- 
turn the  faith  of  many,  leading  them  away,  by  a  pretence  of 
superior  knowledge,  from  Him  wdio  framed  and  ordered  the 
universe,  as  if  they  had  something  higher  and  better  to 
show  them  than  the  God  who  made  heaven  and  earth,  and 
all  that  is  tlierein  ;  bringing  ruin  upon  their  converts,  by 
giving  tliem  injurious  and  irreligious  sentiments  toward  the 
Creator."  t  In  the  first  book  of  his  work,  he  gives  an  ac- 
count of  the  opinions  of  the  Gnostics.  In  his  second  book, 
he  undertakes  to  confute  them,  by  showing  their  intrinsic 
incredibility,  and  commences  by  saying,  "  It  will  be  proper  to 


*  Advers   Marcion.,  lib.  i.  c  1;  0pp.  p.  366,  ed.  Priorii. 
t  Cont.  Hteres.,  lib.  i.  Praef.  §  1,  p.  2,  ed.  Massuet. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  173 

begin  with  the  first  and  principal  topic,  God,  the  Creator^ 
whom  they  blaspheme,  who  is  God  and  Lord  alone,  sole 
author  of  all,  sole  Father."  *  In  concluding  the  book,  he 
affirms  that  what  he  has  been  maintaining  is  consonant  to 
what  was  tanght  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  by  the  Law 
and  the  Prophets,  namely,  that  there  is  one  God  and  Father 
of  all,  and  that  all  things  were  made  by  him,  and  not  by 
angels,  nor  by  any  other  Power,  f  He  then  begins  his  third 
book  by  proving  this  doctrine  from  the  Gospels,  which,  he 
says,  all  teach  "  that  there  is  one  God,  the  Maker  of  heaven 
and  earth,  who  was  announced  by  the  prophets ;  and  one 
Messiah,  the  Son  of  God."  $  In  the  last  paragraph  of  this 
book,  he  prays  that  the  heretics  may  not  persevere  in  their 
errors,  but  that,  being  "converted  to  the  Church  of  God, 
Christ  may  be  formed  within  them  ;  and  that  they  may  know 
the  Maker  of  this  universe,  the  only  true  God  and  Lord  of 
all."  — "  Thus  we  pray  for  them,"  he  says,  "  loving  theni  better 
than  they  love  themselves."  He  then  states,  that  in  his  next 
book  he  shall  endeavor  to  induce  them,  by  reasoning  from  the 
words  of  Christ,."  to  abstain  from  speaking  evil  of  their 
Maker,  who  alone  is  God  ;  "  and  accordingly,  in  the  com- 
mencement of  the  fourth  book,  he  repeats  similar  representa- 
tions of  their  fundamental  doctrine,  which,  with  others  to  the 
same  effect,  it  is  unnecessary  to  subjoin. 

*'  I  will  endeavor,"  says  Origen,  §  "  to  define  who  is  a  heretic. 
All  who  profess  to  believe  in  Christ,  and  yet  affirm  that  there  is 
one  god  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  and  another  of  the  Gospels, 
and  maintain  that  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
was  not  He  who  was  proclaimed  by  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  but 
another,  I  know  not  what,  God,  wholly  unknown  and  unheard  of, 
—  all  such  we  consider  as  heretics,  however  they  may  set  off  their 

*  Lib.  ii.  c.  1,  §  1,  p.  116.  t  Lib.  ii.  c.  35,  §  4,  p.  171. 

t  Lib.  iii.  c.  1,  §  2,  p.  174. 

§  Apud  Pamphili  Mart.  Apolog-  pro  Origene;  iu  Origen.  Opp-  iv.,  Ap« 
pend.,  p.  22. 


174  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

doctrines  with  different  fictions.      Such  are  the  followers  of  Maiv 
cion  and  Valentinus  and  Basilides."  * 

In  the  fifth  century,  Theodoret  wrote  a  history  of  heresies. 
He  speaks  of  the  Gnostics  as  nearly  extinct,  and  professes 
that  his  accounts  of  them  are  derived  from  preceding 
writers,  t  He  treats  of  them  in  his  first  book ;  and  this 
book,  he  says,  contains  "  an  account  of  the  fables  of  those 
who  have  imagined  another  Creator,  and,  denying  that  there 
is  one  principle  of  all  things,  have  introduced  other  principles 
which  have  no  existence ;  and  who  say  that  the  Lord  ap- 
peared to  men  in  the  semblance  of  a  man  only."  | 

Our  information  concerning  the  distinguishing  doctrines 
common  to  the  Gnostics,  in  the  general  form  in  which  they 
have  been  stated,  is  full  and  satisfactory ;  and  these  doctrines 
there  is  no  difficulty  in  comprehending.  But  the  same  cannot 
be  said  of  the  transcendental  speculations  of  the  theosophic 
Gnostics.  These  concerned  the  supposed  production  from  the 
Supreme  Divinity  of  hypostatized  §  attributes  and  ideas^ 
forming  beings  whom,  in  common  with  him,  they  denomi- 
nated ^ons,  or  Immortals ;  —  the  full  development  of  the 
Deity  by  those  emanations,  constituting  the  Pleroma ;  ||  —  the 


*  The  original  adds,  "and  those  who  call  themselves  Tethians;"  where, 
for  "  Tethians,"  I  suppose  we  should  read  "  Sethians,"  a  name  assumed  by 
some  of  the  Gnostics,  who  regarded  Seth  as  the  progenitor  or  prototype  of 
the  spiritual  among  men. 

t  See  the  Introduction  to  his  "  Haireticarum  Fabularum  Compendimn," 
and  the  Preface  to  the  Second  Book;  0pp.  iv.  pp.  187-189,  218,  ed.  Sir- 
mond. 

t  Ibid.,  p.  188. 

§  I  use  the  term  "  hypostatize,"  and  its  relatives,  to  express  the  ascribing 
of  proper  personality  to  what  in  its  nature  is  devoid  of  it. 

II  WTajputta,  Fulness,  Completeness,  Perfection,  here  signifying  the  full, 
complete,  ])erfect  development  of  the  Deity.  The  word,  though  with  a  change 
of  its  meaning,  was  borrowed  by  the  Gnostics  frcm  St.  Paul.  See  Eph.  i. 
23;  iii.  19.   Col.  i.  19;  ii.  9. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        175 

realm  of  God,  the  spiritual  world  (in  contradistinction  to  the 
animal  and  material),  which  was  likewise  called  the  Pleroma  ; 
all  properly  spiritual  existences  being  considered  as  deriving 
their  substance  from  that  of  the  Infinite  Spirit ;  —  and  the 
mingling  of  spirit  with  matter ;  the  causes  which  led  to 
the  formation  of  the  material  world,  and  the  relations  of  this 
to  the  spiritual  world. 

These  speculations  of  the  theosophic  Gnostics  were  very- 
foreign  from  any  conceptions  with  which  we  are  familiar. 
They  seem  to  have  assumed  no  definite  and  permanent  shape, 
but  to  have  varied  according  to  the  imaginations  of  different 
sects  and  individuals;  everyone,  as  Tertullian  says,  mould- 
ing what  he  had  received  to  his  own  liking ;  the  disciple 
thinking  himself  as  much  at  liberty  as  his  master  to  innovate 
at  pleasure  *  Nearly  all  the  direct  information  concerning 
them,  on  which  we  can  rely  with  any  confidence,  is  derived 
from  their  earlier  controversial  opponents,  the  fathers  of  the 
second  and  third  centuries ;  and  it  cannot  be  supposed,  that 
those  writers  furnish  a  full  explanation  of  the  theories  of  the 
Gnostics  in  their  most  intelligible  and  plausible  form.  It 
was  the  business  of  the  fathers  to  divest  them  of  all  adventi- 
tious recommendations,  to  remove  whatever  might  dazzle  and 
deceive  the  eye,  and  to  show,  not  their  coincidence  with  any 
existing  forms  of  philosophy,  but  their  essential  errors,  their 
intrinsic  incongruity,  and  their  opposition  to  reason  and  Scrip- 
ture.    They  have    taken   them    to   pieces,    to   exhibit  their 


*  Tertullian.,  De  Praescript.  Haeretic,  c.  42,  pp.  217,  218.  — Of  the  sect 
of  the  Marcosians,  Irenneus  treats  at  much  length,  probably  because  they  pre- 
vailed particularly  in  the  part  of  Gaul  where  he  resided  (lib.  i.  c.  13,  §  7, 
p.  65).  He  concludes  his  account  of  them  with  saying,  "But,  since  they 
disagree  among  themselves  in  doctrine  and  teaching,  and  those  Avho  are 
acknowledged  as  the  more  recent  affect  every  day  to  find  out  something  new, 
and  to  bring  forth  what  never  had  been  thought  of  before,  it  is  hard  to  de- 
scribe the  notions  of  all  of  them  "  (lib.  i.  c.  21,  §  15,  p.  98).  The  same,  or 
nearly  the  same,  might,  I  conceive,  have  been  said  of  every  other  body  of 
theosophic  Gnostics,  who  were  classed  together  as  a  sect. 


176  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

defects  ;  and  it  is  not  easy,  or  rather  it  is  impossible,  to  restore 
them  as  they  were  originally  put  together.  At  the  same 
time,  clearness  of  thought,  precision  of  language,  and  accuracy 
in  reporting  opinions,  were  not  characteristics  of  the  writers 
of  that  age.  Beside  this,  the  Gnostics  did  not  understand 
themselves ;  and  it  was  impossible,  therefore,  that  the  fiithera 
should  understand  them. 

All  these  causes  combine  to  occasion  peculiar  difficulty  in 
forming  a  just  notion  of  the  speculations  of  the  theosophic 
Gnostics.  If  their  own  writings  had  remained  to  us  entire, 
no  common  acuteness  would  probably  have  been  necessary  to 
follow  the  process  by  which  visionary  conceptions  and  alle- 
gories passed  into  doctrines ;  to  apprehend  the  state  of  mind, 
the  confused  mingling  of  imperfect,  changing,  and  inconsistent 
fancies,  out  of  which  their  theories  arose  ;  to  determine  where 
mysticism  was  brightening  into  meaning ;  or  to  detect  what 
portion  of  truth,  under  some  disguise  or  other,  may  have 
entered  into  and  been  neutralized  in  their  composition.  As 
in  so  many  metaphysical  and  theological  systems,  from  the 
age  of  Plato  to  our  own,  we  should  doubtless  have  found,  that 
their  dialect  admitted  of  but  a  very  partial  translation  into  the 
universal  language  of  common  sense.  With  the  best  guidance, 
we  should  have  been  unable  to  place  ourselves  in  the  same 
position  with  the  Gnostics,  under  the  same  circumstances,  so 
as  to  discern  the  spectral  illusions  which,  in  the  dawn  of 
Christianity,  they  saw  pictured  on  the  clouds,  and  fancied  to 
be  celestial  visions. 

Still,  even  as  regards  their  theosophic  doctrines,  enough 
may  be  ascertained  for  our  jiurpose ;  perhaps  all  that  is 
of  importance  in  relation  to  the  history  of  opinions,  or 
the  history  of  our  religion.  After  fixing  our  attention 
on  them  steadily,  what  appeared  at  first  view  altogether 
confused  and  monstrous  begins  to  assume  a  form  better 
defined ;  the  great  features  common  to  their  systems  show 
themselves    more    distinctly,   and   we    are    able    to   discern 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        177 

their  likeness  to  other  modes  of  opinion  that  have  widely 
prevailed. 

The  fathers,  as  has  been  said,  were  but  poor  interpreters  of 
the  dreams  of  the  theosophic  Gnostics,  But,  as  regards  the 
whole  history  of  the  Gnostics,  there  is  constant  need  of  caution 
in  admitting,  and  care  in  scrutinizing,  the  representations 
of  their  catholic  opponents.  What  is  related  by  the  fathers 
concerning  supposed  heretics  of  the  Jirst  century  is  mixed 
with  fiibles  and  im2)robabilities.  Their  fuller  accounts  of  the 
more  important  sects  of  the  second  century,  the  Marcionites 
and  Yalentinians,  were  founded  upon  the  writings  of  mem- 
bers of  these  sects.  But  there  are  other  cases,  in  which  it 
admits  of  no  doubt,  that  even  those  of  the  fathers  who  are 
our  best  authorities  proceeded  upon  common  rumor  and  oral 
information,  distorted,  exaggerated,  and  unfounded. 

It  often  requires  much  acuteness  and  discrimination,  as  well 
as  intellectual  and  moral  fairness,  to  give  a  correct  report  of 
the  system  of  an  individual  or  a  sect,  especially  when  its  doc- 
trines, being  involved  in  mysticism,  present  no  definite  ideas, 
even  to  the  minds  of  those  by  wliom  they  are  held.  Some  of 
the  ancient  philosophers,  particularly  Plato,  could  they  have 
had  a  foreknowledge  of  the  works  of  their  admirers  and  ex- 
positors, in  ancient  and  modern  times,  would,  I  believe,  have 
wondered  greatly  at  much  which  they  could,  and  much  which 
they  could  not,  understand.  But  the  fathers  did  not  write  of 
the  Gnostics  as  admiring  historians.  With  the  partial  excep- 
tion of  Clement  of  Alexandria,  they  wrote  as  controvertists, 
whose  feelings  were  enlisted  against  them.  All  the  errors, 
but  such  as  spring  from  intentional  dishonesty,  to  which  such 
controvertists  are  liable,  are  to  be  expected,  even  from  those 
of  their  number  on  whom  alone  we  can  rely,  —  the  flithers  of 
the  first  three  centuries,  or  the  earlier  fatliers,  as  they  may  be 
called  by  way  of  specific  distinction.  Under  circumstances 
which  furnish  much  less  excuse,  the  grossest  mistakes  are  not 

12 


178  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

unfrequently  committed.  Thus,  a  German  theologian  of  our 
day  classes  Priestley  among  decided  atheists ;  *  and  another, 
a  naturalist  himself,  states  that  Locke  agreed  with  Spinoza, 
Hobbes,  and  Hume,  in  believing  reputed  miracles  to  be  only 
natural  events,  referring,  in  evidence  of  his  assertion,  to  a  tract 
by  which  it  is  clearly  disproved.f  A  still  more  remarkable 
error  concerning  that  great  man  is  the  statement  or  implica- 
tion, to  be  found,  I  believe,  in  some  writers  above  the  lowest 
class,  that  he  referred  the  origin  of  all  our  ideas  to  sensation. 
Many  similar  misrepresentations  might  be  produced;  and 
from  such  errors,  committed,  as  it  were,  before  our  eyes, 
through  the  neglect  or  misuse  of  means  of  information  open 
to  all,  we  learn  what  may  have  been  the  errors  of  ancient 
writers,  at  a  period  when  it  was  incomparably  more  difficult 
to  ascertain  the  truth ;  when  all  communication  of  knowledge 
from  a  distance  was  tardy  and  imperfect ;  when  oral  accounts, 
with  the  misunderstandings  and  misrepresentations  by  which 
they  are  usually  characterized,  were  often  the  only  source  of 
information  attainable  ;  and  when  the  voice  of  the  press,  which 
now  makes  itself  heard  on  every  side,  to  confirm  truth  or  to 
confute  error,  in  regard  to  all  facts  that  are  anywhere  of 
common  notoriety,  was  as  yet  unuttered. 

Thus,  as  reporters  of  the  history  and  doctrines  of  the 
Gnostics,  in  their  obscure  ramifications,  even  the  earlier 
fathers  were  in  a  great  measure  disqualified,  not  merely  by 
their  feelings  of  dislike  toward  those  heretics,  but  by  the 
great  difficulty  of  obtaining  full  and  correct  knowledge  con- 
cerning them ;  and,  we  may  add,  by  that  want  of  accuracy  of 
conception  and  representation,  which  they  shared  in  com- 
mon with  their  opponents,  and  with  all  others  of  their  age. 

We  must,  furthermore,  keep  in  view  their  prejudices,  and 

*  Lehrbuch  des  Christlichen  Glaubens,  von  August  Halm  (Leipzig,  1828), 
p.  178. 

t  Institutiones  Theologiae  Christianae  Dogmaticae  a  I.  A.  L.  Wegscheider, 
§  48,  not.  a,  p.  Ill,  ed.  2dae. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE  GOSPELS.  179 

their  liability  to  mistake,  not  merely  as  respects  the  doctrines, 
but  also  as  respects  the  character  and  morals,  of  the  Gnostics. 
We  may  readily  believe,  that  vices,  which  were  more  prop- 
erly to  be  ascribed  to  the  depravity  of  individuals,  were  some- 
times brought  as  geneial  charges  against  the  whole  body 
to  which  those  individuals  were  considered  as  belonging,  and 
that  the  practical  inferences  unfavorable  to  morality,  to  be 
drawn  from  the  false  doctrines  of  the  Gnostics,  were  repre- 
sented as  their  common  practical  effects ;  though  it  is  often 
the  case,  that  men  do  not  follow  out  in  action  the  results 
of  bad  principles  any  more  than  of  good. 

In  determining  the  truth  concerning  the  Gnostics,  we  may 
find  a  concurrence  of  credible  and  contemporary  testimony  to 
what  is  probable  in  itself,  and  coincident  or  consistent  with 
the  still  remaining  expositions  which  they  themselves  gave  of 
their  doctrines  ;  and  consistent,  also,  with  forms  of  opinion 
which  prevailed  during  the  period  when  they  sprung  up  and 
flourished.  This  testimony,  so  confirmed,  is  sufficient  to  estab- 
lish the  leading  facts  concerning  their  character  and  doctrines. 
In  proceeding  farther,  we  must  judge  of  the  accounts  given 
of  them  from  the  particular  probabilities  that  each  case  may 
present,  and  especially  from  the  consistency  of  those  accounts 
with  the  truths  concerning  them  which  we  have  found  means 
to  settle.  And,  throughout  this  whole  inquiry,  particular  at- 
tention must  be  given  to  the  very  different  value  of  those 
ancient  writers  who  have  treated  of  the  Gnostics,  to  the 
period  when  they  lived,  to  their  means  of  information,  to  the 
temper  and  purpose  with  which  they  wrote,  and  to  their 
respective  characters  for  correctness  and  truth.  In  this  re- 
spect, as  we  shall  hereafter  see,  a  wide  distinction  is  to  be 
made  among  writers  who  have  often  been  indiscriminately 
quoted,  as  of  equal  authority  in  regard  to  the  history  of  the 
Gnostics. 

This  subject  has  afforded  scope  for  an  abundance  of  hypoth- 


180  EVIDENCES    OF   THE 

eses  in  modern  times ;  for  few  facts  have  been  so  well  estab 
lislied,  and  so  generally  acknowledged,  as  to  stand  in  theii 
way.  It  has  been  a  sort  of  disputed  province  between  fiction 
and  history.  We  may  meet,  on  every  side,  with  statements 
respecting  the  Gnostics  altogether  unfounded.  Gibbon  says,' 
that  they  "  were  distinguished  as  the  most  learned,  the  most 
polite,  and  most  wealthy  of  the  Christian  name : "  *  but 
the  assertion  is  made  without  proof,  on  his  own  responsibility; 
unless,  indeed,  he  has  repeated  or  exaggerated  the  error  of 
some  preceding  modern  writer,  of  which  I  am  not  aware. 
The  representation  is  such  as  it  may  readily  be  supposed  was 
not  derived  from  their  aiicient  controversial  opponents,  who 
alone  can  be  referred  to  for  information  concerning  the  sub- 
ject. No  one,  I  think,  besides  Gibbon,  has  ascribed  to  them 
the  worldly  distinctions  of  superior  refinement  and  we;iltli; 
but  the  zeal  for  paradoxes,  which  prevails  among  many  of  the 
theological  writers  of  our  age,  has  shown  itself  in  other  repre- 
sentations. The  *theosophic  Gnostics,  though  their  specula- 
tions are  among  the  most  vague  and  inconsequent  that  any 
visionaries  have  produced,  have  been  transformed  into  pene- 
trating and  refined  philosophers,  or,  rather,  described  as 
"  equally  versed  in  the  mysteries  of  Platonism,  of  the  Cab- 
bala, of  the  Zend-Avesta,  and  of  the  New  Testament ;  as 
belonging  rather  to  the  world  of  ideas  than  to  that  of  sensa- 
tions, and  as  manifesting  the  human  soul  in  its  sublime 
ecstasies."  t  This  is  the  language  of  a  writer  who  does  not 
separate  himself  from  the  rest  of  the  intellectual  world  by 
his  general  tone  of  thought  and  expression,  or  by  any  radical 
changes  in  the  use  of  language.  But  one  of  the  followers 
of  the  latest,  darkest,  and  most  repulsive  school  of  German 
metaphysicians  has  likewise  thought  to  do  honor  to  the  Gnos- 
tics, by  claiming  them  as  its  progenitors.t 

*  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire,  chap.  xv. 

t  Matter,  Histoire  Critique  du  Gnosticisme  (1828),  tom.  ii.  p.  281. 

X  I  refer  to  Baur,  Professor  of  Gospel  Theolog}'  in  the  University  of 


GENUINENESS    OF   THE   GOSPELS.  181 

To  justify  such  eulogies  as  have  been  bestowed  on  them 
by  the  writer  first  mentioued,  their  systems  are  professedly 
laid  open  ;  and  thougli  the  end  be  not  obtained,  though  noth- 

Tubingen,  >\  disciple  of  Hegel,  and  a  Avriter  of  much  note  among  liis  coun- 
trymen, who  has  published  a  large  work  relating  to  the  Gnostics,  entitled 
"The  Christian  Gnosis  (or  Gnosticism);  or,  the  Christian  Philosophy  of 
Religion  historically  developed"  (Tubingen,  8vo,  1835).  His  main  pur- 
pose is  to  represent  the  Gnostics  as  the  true  religious  philosophers  of  their 
times,  and  to  exhibit  the  resemblance  of  their  doctrines  to  the  latest  philoso- 
phy of  religion,  as  developed  by  Jacob  Boehmen,  Schelling,  Schleiermacher, 
and  tinally  by  Hegel,  who  has  brought  it  nearest  to  perfection.  The  funda- 
mental doctrine,  in  which  he  regards  the  Gnostics  as  coinciding  with  these 
modern  philosophers,  is  one  which  he  has  arbitrarily  ascribed  to  them. 
According  to  him,  they  viewed  God  (their  Supreme  God)  as  an  unconscious, 
impersonal,  and  unintelligent  being.  The  doctrine  of  Hegel  teaches  that  all 
individual  spirits  are  but  moditications  of  one  universal  spirit,  the  only  posi- 
tive existence  in  the  universe.  Ideas  alone  are  things.  But  this  universal 
spirit  is,  in  itself,  unconscious,  and  first  arrives  af  consciousness  in  its  devel- 
opment in  man.  Man  is  the  only  conscious  God.  "  The  essence  of  religion, 
therefore,  is  the  self-consciousness  of  God.  God  knows  himself  in  a  con- 
sciousness different  from  him,  which,  in  itself,  is  the  consciousness  of  God, 
but  which  also  has  reference  to  itself,  as  it  knows  its  identity  with  God;  an 
identity  existing  through  the  negation  of  finiteness.  Thus,  in  one  word, 
God  is  this,  —  to  distinguish  one's  self  from  one's  self,  to  become  objective 
to  one's  self,  but,  in  this  distinction,  to  be  absolutely  identical  with  one's 
self"  These  words,  in  which  Baur  reports  the  doctrine  of  Hegel  on  the  most 
important  of  subjects,  seem  rather  the  language  of  a  man  not  of  sane  mind, 
than  such  as  accords  with  the  character  of  one  reputed,  by  many  of  his  coun- 
trymen, to  be  the  wisest  of  philosophers. 

After  this  account  of  "The  Chri-tian  Philosophy  of  Religion,"  which,  it 
appears,  is  atheism,  Baur  remarks,  that  it  is  evident  "how  intimately  this 
philosophy  is  connected  with  Christianity,  how  eagerly  it  transfers  to  itself 
its  entire  substance,  nay,  that,  in  its  whole  purpose,  it  is  nothing  else  than  a 
scientific  explanation  of  the  problem  of  historical  Christianity"   (pp.   709, 

no). 

In  the  work  of  Baur,  there  is  no  critical  examination  of  the  history  of  the 
Gnostics,  nor  any  information  of  value  concerning  them.  He  ascribes  to 
them,  not  only  without  authorit}',  but  contrary  to  all  evidence,  the  doctrine 
of  an  unconscious  and  impersonal  God.  His  work,  like  those  of  many  of  hh 
countrymen,  exhibits  an  incapacity  of  thinking  clearly  and  consistently,  and 
of  presenting  a  lucid  iihd  well-digested  exposition  of  a  subject;  and  is  char- 
acterized by  such  a  use  of  words,  especially  concerning  the  topics  of  religion, 
as  would  unsettle  all  their  established  meanings.     It  belongs  to  that  class  of 


182  EVIDL'NCES   OF   THE 

ing  wonderful  appear,  yet  the  Gnostics,  could  they  revive, 
might  address  their  expositors  in  words  like  those  which 
Plato  puts  into  the  mouth  of  Theastetus,  after  subjecting  him 
to  the  questioning  of  Socrates  :  '"  By  Jupiter,  you  have  made 
me  say  more  than  I  had  in  me."  Nor  has  this  too  great 
ingenuity  of  explanation  been  confined  to  those  who  have 
formed  an  over-estimate  of  the  spiritual  acquirements  of  the 
Gnostics.  In  the  development  of  their  opinions,  it  is  not 
uncommon  to  find  a  striking  contrast  between  the  scanty 
or  worthless  materials  that  antiquity  has  left  us,  and  the 
long  and  ready  detail  of  a  modern  expositor,  defining  the 
particulars,  and   tracing   the   history,  of  a  system.      When 


speculative  writings,  of  which  Germany  has  been  so  fertile;  treating  of  the 
most  important  subjects,  and  promulgatins,  sometimes  with  dogmatical 
phlegm,  and  sometimes  with  heartless  flippancy,  doctrines  the  most  disas- 
trous to  faith  and  morals.  These  writings  are  distinguished,  not  so  much  by 
a  want  of  reasoning,  or  an  evident  incapacity  of  reasoning,  as  by  an  apparent 
insensibility  to  its  necessity  or  use.  Every  thing  is  assumed.  The  most 
extravagant  and  most  pernicious  theories  are  put  forward  as  if  they  consisted 
of  self-evident  propositions.  Yet  when  the  metaphysician  or  theologist  of 
the  day  brings  out  his  new  system,  resting  on  no  truths  or  facts,  but  spun 
from  his  own  brain,  his  disciples  {les  plus  sots  qui  toujours  admirent  un  sot) 
applaud  the  rigid  thought  and  profound  speculations  of  their  master;  while 
more  intelligent  readers,  unaccustomed  to  this  style  of  discussion  without 
explanation  or  argument,  are  at  first  perplexed  by  a  phenomenon  which 
they  cannot  readily  understand.  These  works,  numerous  as  they  are,  do  not 
belong  to  the  literature  of  the  world.  They  form  a  literature,  if  it  may  be  so 
called,  immiscible  with  any  other.  The  speculations  they  contain  have  no 
alliance  with  those  truths  which  human  wisdom  has  established,  or  which 
God  has  revealed  to  us.  Tennemann,  the  German  historian  of  philosophy, 
likened  the  new  school  of  German  metaphysicians,  as  it  existed  in  his  time, 
to  the  later  Platonists.  Baur  finds  a  strong  resemblance  between  those  of 
our  day  and  the  Gnostics.  These  modern  metaphysicians  do,  in  truth, 
belong  to  the  age  of  the  later  Platonists  and  Gnostics.  But  they  resemble 
them,  not  so  much  through  a  correspondence  of  doctrines,  as  in  their  mystical 
and  barbarous  obscurity,  in  their  perversion  and  fabrication  of  language,  in 
their  arrogant  claims,  in  their  contempt  for  the  exercise  of  the  understanding 
in  the  investigation  and  establishment  of  truth,  and  in  their  pretending  to 
some  other  foundation  than  reason  and  the  revelation  of  God  on  which  to  rest 
our  highest  knowledge. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        183 

we  look  for  the  proof  of  what  is  affirmed,  we  find,  per- 
haps, straggling  authorities  of  doubtful  credit  or  uncertain 
application ;  supposed  analogies  with  opinions  less  under- 
stood than  those  of  the  Gnostics,  to  establish  which,  the 
mere  shadows  of  meaning  are  to  be  tracked  through  the 
obscurity  of  Eastern  theology,  or  some  imaginary  scheme  of 
Egyptian  superstition ;  etymological  conjectures ;  and  expla- 
nations of  allegories  and  symbols,  to  which  the  ingenuity  of 
the  writer  may  give  a  glimmering  of  probability,  while  his 
page  is  open  before  us.  In  the  words  of  Tertulhan,  Late  quce- 
runtur  incerta,  latius  disputantur  proesujnpta,  —  "  There  is  a 
wide  search  after  uncertainties,  and  a  wider  discussion  of 
assumptions."  At  the  same  time,  facts  that  lie  most  open  to 
view  have  been  disregarded  or  misrepresented,  or  but  par- 
tially stated. 

In  consequence,  however,  of  all  the  attention  which  has 
been  given  to  the  subject,  the  character  of  the  Gnostics  may 
undoubtedly  at  the  present  day  be  better  understood  than  it 
has  been.  The  extravagant  over-estimate  of  them,  which 
appears  in  some  modern  writers,  is,  in  part,  a  re-action  pro- 
duced by  the  extravagant  depreciation  of  them  which  preceded 
it.  The  crude  accounts  of  the  later  as  well  as  earlier  fathers 
were  formerly  received  without  discrimination,  and  without 
any  attempt  to  disengage  the  truth  from  the  language  of  con- 
troversy, or  from  the  mass  of  falsehood  in  which  it  was  envel- 
oped, and  consequently  without  any  exercise  of  judgment  on 
the  respective  credibility  of  the  authorities  adduced.  The 
charges  made  against  them  by  the  later  as  well  as  earlier 
fathers,  whether  probable  or  not,  have  been  repeated  without 
examination  by  theological  bigotry,  which,  connecting  with 
the  name  of  heretic  the  ideas  of  folly,  immorality,  and  im- 
piety, has  given  itself  full  scope  in  ascribing  these  bad  quali- 
ties to  the  Gnostics.  Even  more  sober  and  judicious  writers 
have  spoken  of  their  systems  as  if  they  had  just  appeared, 
instead  of  having  been  produced  many  centuries  ago ;  and 


184  EVIDENCES   OF    THE 

have  rather  compared  them  with  an  abstract  stanflarc'l  of 
what  they  themselves  deemed  sound  philosophy,  than  viewed 
them  relatively  to  the  erroneous  conceptions  of  ancient  times. 
Their  proper  rank  has  not  been  assigned  them  among  the 
other  forms  of  metaphysical  and  religious  belief,  equally  false 
and  irrational,  which  have  been  or  still  are  extensively  re- 
ceived. But  the  Gnostics  were  prodigies  neither  of  wisdom 
nor  of  folly.  There  was  nothing  peculiar  in  the  character 
of  their  minds  to  distinguish  them  from  numerous  theorists  of 
their  own  and  other  times.  With  the  exception  of  the  Mar- 
cionites,  they  belonged  to  the  large  class  of  the  professors 
of  hidden  but  intuitive  wisdom,  who  exhibit  to  the  ignorant 
bits  of  colored  glass,  with  the  air  of  men  displaj'ing  inesti- 
mable jewels.  The  most  eminent  among  them  were  probably 
far  inferior  to  some  of  their  opponents,  to  such  men  as  Ter- 
tullian  and  Origen,  in  vigor  and  clearness  of  intellect,  and 
in  that  intense  conviction  of  the  truths  of  religion  which 
at  once  implies  a  sound  judgment,  and  tends  to  perfect  it;  but 
I  do  not  knmv  that  they  would  appear  to  much  disadvantage, 
if  brought  into  comparison  with  the  later "  Platonists  of  the 
third  and  fourth  centuries. 

The  Gnostics  and  Ebionites,  as  has  been  remarked,  were 
the  principal  heretics  of  the  first  two  centuries.  They 
were  both  divided  from  the  communion  of  catholic  Christians. 
The  Ebionites,  belonging  to  what,  in  their  view,  was  the 
privileged  race  of  the  Jews,  kept  aloof  from  the  Gentile  con- 
verts ;  and,  among  the  Gnostics,  the  Marcionites  formed 
separate  churches  of  their  own.*  ^  The  theosophic  Gnostics,  it 
is  probable,  likewise  had  their  separate  religious  assemblies, 
unless  they  were  prevented  by  the  smallness  of  their  numbers, 
or  by  what  they  regarded  as  a  philosophical  indifference  to  out- 
ward forms  of  religion.     Tertullian,  however,  says  generally 

*  Tertullian.  advers.  Marcion.,  lib.  iv.  c.  5,  pp.  415,  416. 


GENUINENESS  OP  THE  GOSPELS.        185 

of  the  heretics,  that,  "  for  the  most  part,  they  have  no  churches ; 
motherless,  without  a  settled  habitation,  bereaved  of  faith, 
outcasts,  they  wander  about  without  a  home."*  An  open 
separation  between  the  Gnostics  and  the  catholic  Christians 
was  produced,  on  the  one  hand,  by  the  pride  of  the  Gnostics 
in  their  peculiar  opinions,  and  by  their  regarding  themselves 
as  the  only  spiritual  believers,  and  all  beside  as  lying  in  dark- 
ness ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  by  the  strong  dislike  which  the 
great  body  of  Christians  entertained  for  their  doctrines  and 
pretensions-,  and  by  the  brief  profession  of  faith  (the  origin  of 
what  was  afterward  called  "  The  Apostles'  Creed  ")  required 
of  a  catechumen,  after  passing  his  noviciate,  before  admission 
to  the  communion.  The  Gnostics,  however,  sometimes  rep- 
resented their  exclusion  from  the  Church  as  unjust.  Irenceus 
says  of  the  Valentinians,  — 

"  For  the  sake  of  making  converts  of  those  of  the  Church,  they 
address  discourses  to  the  multitude,  by  which  they  delude  and  en- 
tice the  more  simple,  imitating  our  modes  of  expression  to  induce 
them  to  become  more  frequent  hearers,  and  complaining  to  them 
of  us,  that  when  they  think  as  we  do,  say  the  same  things,  and 
hold  the  same  doctrine,  we  abstain  Avithout  reason  from  their  com- 
munion, and  call  them  heretics."  f 

Till  toward  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  when  the 
heretics  were  spoken  of  in  general  terms,  the  Gnostics  alone 
were  for  the  most  part  intended.  Thus,  for  example,  Clement 
of  Alexandria  sets  forth  his  design  to  "  show  to  all  the  here- 
tics, that  there  is  one  God  and  one  Lord  omnipotent  clearly 
proclaimed  by  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  in  connection  with 
the  blessed  Gospel ; "  I  a  proposition  requiring  to  be  proved 
only  against  the  Gnostics.  So  also  Irenceus,  in  the  Preface 
to  his  fourth  book,  disregarding  his  own  previous  mention  of 

*  De  Pnvscript.  Heretic,  c  42,  p.  218. 
t  Cont.  Hseres.,  lib.  iii.  c.  15,  §  2,  p.  203. 
X  Stromal.,  Ub.  iv.  §  1,  p.  564,  ed.  Potter. 


186  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

the  Ebionites,  speaks  of  all  heretics  as  "  teaching  blasphemy 
against  our  Maker  and  Preserver."  * 

But,  in  considering  the  subject  of  the  early  heretics,  it  is  to 
be  remarked,  that  among  the  catholic  Christians,  their  con- 
temporaries, there  was  great  freedom  of  speculation,  and  great 
diversity  of  opinion,  till  after  the  time  of  Origen.  Probably 
no  standard  of  orthodoxy  was  generally  received,  much  more 
comprehensive  than  what  has  been  called  the  Apostles' 
Creed ;  and  the  opinions  of  no  individual  writer  were  con- 
formable to  any  of  the  standards  which  have  been  since 
established.  In  comparing  TertuUian  with  Origen,  the  one 
the  most  eminent  defender  of  the  common  faith' among  the 
Greeks,  and  the  other  among  the  Latins,  and  both,  after  their 
death,  reputed  as  heretics,  we  not  only  find  in  them  a  wholly 
different  cast  of  mind  and  temper,  but  the  speculations  of  the 
one  are  in  many  respects  diverse  from,  and  opposite  to,  those 
of  the  other;  while  those  of  each  of  them  are  often  very 
remote  from  what  is  the  general  belief  of  Christians  at  the 
present  day.  The  author  of  the  Clementine  Homilies  seems, 
in  ancient  times,  to  have  escaped  the  imputation  of  being  a 
heretic ;  yet,  among  other  doctrines  widely  different  from  the 
more  common  faith,  he  brought  forward  a  theory,  to  be  else- 
where noticed,  respecting  the  Jewish  Law  and  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, in  opposition  to  the  Gnostics,  which  approached  little 
nearer  than  their  own  to  the  opinions  afterwards  established. 
TertuUian  wrote  warmly  against  Hermogenes,  who  main- 
tained that  evil  had  its  source  in  eternal,  unoriginated  matter. 
Yet  Hermogenes  does  not  appear  to  have  been  separated 
from  the  communion  of  the  catholic  Church ;  and  probably 
not  a  few  other  catholic  Christians  held,  in  common  with 
him,  a  doctrine  so  prevalent  in  pagan  philosophy.  It  may  be 
observed,  that  Hermogenes  gave  his  name  to  no  sect,  which 

*  Cont.  H£eres.,  lib.  iv.  Praef.  §  4,  p.  228. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        187 

seems  to  show  that  there  was  nothing  extraordinary  in  his 
opinions  being  held  by  a  Christian.  Tertullian  also  wrote 
against  Praxeas,  who  opposed  the  speculations  which  had 
been  introduced  concerning  the  proper  personality  of  the 
Logos.  His  zeal  was  inflamed  by  the  circumstance,  that 
Praxeas  had  been  an  opponent  of  the  Montanists,  of  which 
sect  Tertullian  had  become  a  member.  But  he  tells  us,  that 
the  greater  part  of  Christians,  "the  simple,  not  to  say  the 
unwise  and  ignorant,"  favored  the  opinions  of  Praxeas.* 
And,  to  mention  but  one  other  example,  there  is  no  ground 
for  supposing,  that  Tertullian  himself,  after  becoming  a  Mon- 
tanist,  was  rejected  from  the  communion  of  the  catholic 
Church ;  though  it  is  true,  that  the  Montanists  were  soon 
regarded  as  a  heresy  separated  from  it. 

■  The  state  of  Christians,  then,  during  the  second  century, 
presents  a  very  remarkable  appearance.  By  the  side  of  the 
great  body  of  Gentile  Christians,  among  whom  such  freedom 
of  speculation  prevailed,  we  find  another  smaller  body  of 
Gentile  Christians,  the  Gnostics,  agreeing  with  the  former  in 
acknowledging  Christ  as  a  divine  teacher,  but  separated  from 
them  by  an  impassable  gulf,  as  holding  doctrines  which 
rendered  the  amalgamation  of  the  two  parties  impossible. 
Notwithstanding  some  striking  analogies  between  their  specu- 
lations, there  was  no  gradual  transition  from  one  system  to 
the  other.  The  separation  was  abrupt  and  broad.  It  con- 
sisted in  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  Gnostics,  that  the 
Creator,  or  the  principal  Creator,  of  the  universe,  the  god  of 
the  Jews,  was  not  the  Supreme  Divinity  and  the  God 
of  Christians. 

The  scheme  of  the  Gnostics  is,  without  doubt,  to  be  re- 
garded, in  part,  as  a  crude  attempt  to  solve  the  existence  of    .. 
evil  in  the  world ;  a  subject  which  engaged  their  attention  in 

*  Advers.  Praxeam,  c.  3,  p.  502. 


188       GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS. 

common  with  that  of  other  religious  theorists  of  their  age. 
But  the  desire  to  solve  this  problem  was  not,  I  conceive,  the 
principal  occasion  of  the  existence  of  Gnosticism.  This,  I 
think,  is  to  be  found  in  the  hereditary  aversion  of  Gentiles  to 
Judaism ;  in  the  traditionary  views  of  the  Old  Testament, 
communicated  by  the  Jews  from  whom  it  was  received ;  and 
in  the  impossibility  which  the  Gnostics  found  of  reconciling 
the  conceptions  of  God  that  it  presents,  with  their  moral  feel- 
ings, and  with  those  conceptions  of  him  which  they  had 
derived  from  Christianity.  Nor  in  this  respect  did  they 
stand  alone.  A  large  portion,  we  know  not  how  large,  of  the 
catholic  Christians,  including  some  of  the  most  eminent  and 
intellectual  of  their  number,  equally  regarded  much  in  the 
Jewish  Law  and  history  as  irreconcilable  with  correct  morality 
and  just  notions  of  God,  if  understood  in  its  obvious  sense. 
They,  however,  as  we  shall  hereafter  see,  took  a  very  different 
course  from  that  of  the  Gnostics,  in  escaping  from  the  diffi- 
culty with  which  they  were  pressed. 

Regarding  the  aversion  of  the  Gentiles  to  Judaism  as  the 
principal  occasion  of  Gnosticism,  we  may  readily  understand 
why  the  whole  body  of  early  heretics  among  the  Gentile  con- 
verts became  Gnostics.  As  soon  as  men's  attention  was 
distinctly  fixed  upon  the  subject,  nothing  but  a  thorough  and 
strongly  operative  faith  in  Christianity  could  enable  a  Gentile, 
Christian  to  subdue  the  prejudices,  and  overcome  the  diffi- 
culties, which  stood  in  the  way  of  his  acknowledging  the 
Old  Testament  to  have  the  divine  authority  that  was  claimed 
for  it. 

To  the  opinions  of  the  Gnostics  respecting  Judaism  we 
shall  recur  hereafter.  But  other  topics  must  be  first  attend- 
ed to. 


CHAPTER    III. 

ON   THE    EXTERNAL    HISTORY    OF    THE    GNOSTICS,    AND    THE 
SOURCES    OF    INFORMATION    CONCERNING    THEM. 

Iren^us  pretends,  that  all  the  Gnostics  derived  their  ex- 
istence from  Simon,  the  magician  of  Samaria,  who  is  men- 
tioned in  the  eighth  chaj^ter  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  He 
says,  that  "all  heresies  had  their  origin  in  him,"  —  that  he 
was  "  the  father  of  all  heretics."  *  All  those,  he  says,  who  in 
any  way  corrupt  the  truth,  or  mar  the  preaching  of  the 
Church,  are  disciples  and  successors  of  Simon,  the  Samaritan 
magician  ;  although,  as  he  honestly  adds,  "  they  do  not  ac- 
knowledge him  as  their  master."  t  The  same  representation 
of  Simon  appears  in  other,  succeeding  fathers.  But  the  in- 
formation of  Irenicus  and  his  contemporaries,  concerning 
particular  personages  and  events  in  the  history  of  Christianity 
during  the  first  centliry,  except  so  far  as  it  was  derived  from 
the  New  Testament,  was  very  imperfect  and  uncertain  ;  and 
their  accounts  of  Simon  are  not  to  be  implicitly  received. 

•But  there  is  no  doubt,  that  there  was,  in  the  first  century, 
a  Simon,  a  Samaritan,  a  pretender  to  divine  authority  and 
supernatural  powers,  who  for  a  time  had  many  followers, 
who  stood  in  a  certain  relation  to  Christianity,  and  who  may 
have  held  some  opinions  more  or  less  similar  to  those  of  the 

»  Cont.  llseres.,  lib.  i.  c.  23,  §  2,  p.  99;  lib.  iii.  Prjef.  p.  173;  lib.  ii.  Praef 
p.  115. 

t  Lib.  i.  c.  27,  §  4,  p.  106. 


190  "EVIDENCES  OF   THE 

Gnostics.  Justin  Martyr  mentions  him  and  liis  followers 
several  times,  but  gives  no  account  of  his  doctrines.  He  only 
states,  that  he  deceived  men  by  magical  arts,  and  that  almost 
all  the  Samaritans  (the  countrymen  of  Justin)  "  acknowledged 
aud  worshipped  him  as  the  first  God,"  "  over  all  rule,  authority, 
and  power ; "  and  affirmed,  that  a  woman,  whom  he  carried 
about  with  him,  named  Helena,  was  the  first  (hypostatized) 
conception  of  his,  that  is,  of  the  divine  mind.*  These  opinions 
seem  to  imply  an  annihilation  of  common  sense  in  his  fol- 
lowers ;  but  they  admit,  as  we  shall  see,  of  some  explanation, 
that  may  serve  to  reconcile  them  to  our  apprehensions. 
Justin  does  not  identify  the  Simon  of  whom  he  speaks  with 
the  Simon  mentioned  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  ;'t  and,  in 
modern  times,  some  of  the  learned  have  contended  that  they 
were  different  individuals.  But  Luke  describes  the  Simon 
whom  he  mentions  as  practising  magical  arts,  so  as  to  deprive 
the  Samaritan  nation  of  their  senses,  and  as  declaring  himself 
to  be  some  great  personage ;  and  he  adds,  that  all,  high  and 
low,  affirmed  him  to  be  the  Power  of  God,  called  Great,  t 
When  we  compare  Luke's  account  with  that  of  Justin,  it 
appears  incredible  that  the  two  writers  should  be  speaking  of 
two  different  individuals,  who  bore  the  same  name,  who  were 
conspicuous  in  the  same  country,  Samaria,  and  who  likewise 
were  contemporaries ;  for  Justin  says  of  the  Simon  whom  he 
mentions,  that  he  was  at  Rome  during  the  reign  of  Claudius. 
Believing  the  accounts  of  both,  therefore,  to  relate  to  the 
same  person,  we  may  observe,  that  Simon,  according  to  Luke, 
suffered  himself  to  be  regarded  as  a  manifestation  of  what  was 
probably  considered  as  the  highest  power  of  God.  From  this, 
it  was  an  easy  transition  for  his  followers  to  sj^eak  of  him  as 

*  I.  Apolog.,  p.  38,  seqq.,  p.  84;  11.  Apolog.,  p.  134;  Dial,  cum  Trj-ph., 
p.  397,  ed.  Thirl b}'. 

t  Chap.  viii.  9-24. 

J  Acts  viii.  9, 10.  In  the  tenth  verse,  I  adopt  the  reading,  Our'/f  hnv  i 
ivva(iLg  tov  Qeov  tj  K.a?j)Vfiivii  fieyaXij. 


GENUINENESS    OF   THE   GOSPELS.  191 

a  manifestation  of  God,  or  as  God  made  manifest  to  men,  and 
thus  to  represent  him  as  God  himself.  I  have  here  supposed 
this  account  to  have  been  given  of  him  by  his  followers. 
Some  of  the  flithers  subsequent  t©  Justin  affirm,  that  Simon 
himself  claimed  to  be  God.  But  this  was  not  unlikely  to  be 
said,  if  his  adherents  so  regarded  him ;  for  the  later  opinions 
of  a  sect  were  not  uncommonly  ascribed  to  its  founder.  But, 
if  Simon  did  use  such  language  concerning  himself,  it  may 
still  be  explained  in  a  similar  manner.  In  the  assertions 
which  he  or  his  followers  made  concerning  Helena,  there  was, 
I  conceive,  a  like  vague  use  of  words ;  but  through  the 
strange  accounts  given  of  her,  which  it  is  not  worth  while  to 
detail,  we  may  perhaps  discern  that  she  was  regarded  as  the 
symbol,  or  the  manifestation,  of  that  portion  of  spirituality 
which  (according  to  a  common  conception  of  the  Gnostics) 
had  become  entangled  in  matter,  and  for  the  liberation  of 
which  the  interposition  of  the  Deity  was  required. 

From  all  the  notices  of  Simon,  it  does  not  seem  likely  that 
he  much  affected  the  character  of  a  speculative  philosopher 
or  theologist,  or  was  solicitous  to  establish  any  system  of 
doctrines.  ^He  appears  to  have  been  a  bold,  artful,  vainglo- 
rious, dishonest  adventurer,  claiming  to  possess  supernatural 
powers,  and  having  much  skill  in  obtaining  control  over  the 
minds  of  others.  In  Josephus,  there  is  mention  of  a  Simon, 
pretending  to  be  a  magician,  who,  somewhere  about  twenty 
years  after  the  events  recorded  in  the  eighth  chapter  of  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  was  employed  by  Felix,  then  Procurator 
of  Judaea,  to  persuade  Drusilla,  the  wife  of  Azizus,  King  of 
Emesa,  to  forsake  her  husband,  and  marry  Felix ;  which 
Drusilla  was  prevailed  on  to  do.*  It  is  not  improbable  that 
this  was  the  same  Simon  who  is  spoken  of  by  St.  Luke. 
Whether  he  were  so  or  not,  the  Simon  connected  with  the 


*  Joseph!  Antiq.,  lib.  xx.  c.  7,  §  2.  — Drusilla  is  mentioned,  Acts  xxiv. 
24 


192  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

early  history  of  Christianity  may  be  classed  with  certain  im- 
postors and  fanatics,  not  uncommon  in  the  age  in  which  he 
lived,  who,  proceeding  on  the  doctrines  of  the  Pythagorean 
Platonists  (as  they  may  be.called),  pretended,  through  mysti- 
cal exercises  of  mind,  to  have  attained  a  communion  with  the 
invisible  world,  and  to  jDOSsess  a  power,  which  they  denomi- 
nated theurgy,  of  performing  supernatural  works  by  divine 
assistance.  He  may  be  compared  with  his  contemporary, 
Apollonius  of  Tyana,  whose  works  Hierocles,  an  early  enemy 
of  Christianity,  represented  as  equalling  or  excelling  those  of 
our  Lord ;  or  with  a  somewhat  later  impostor,  Alexander, 
the  Paphlagonian  prophet,  on  whom  Lucian  poured  out  his 
invective.  Like  pretensions  to  magical  power  w-ere  common 
among  the  other  extravagances  of  the  later  Platonists.  Plo- 
tinus,  the  most  eminent  of  the  sect,  was,  according  to  the 
account  of  his  disciple  PorjDhyry  (famous  for  his  work  against 
Christianity),  a  great  theurgist;  and  Proclus,  than  v/hom 
none  of  these  philosophers  had  more  alacrity  in  diving  into 
the  deepest  and  darkest  mysteries,  is  said  by  his  friend  and 
biographer,  Marinus,  to  have  been  able  to  bring  rain  from 
heaven,  to  stop  earthquakes,  and  to  expel  diseases.  Simon 
had  learned  in  a  similar  school ;  and  though  he  was,  probably, 
more  of  an  impostor  than  a  flxnatic,  yet  a  religious  impostor 
can  hardly  be  very  successful  without  a  mixture  of  fanaticism. 
If  he  succeed  in  deceiving  others,  he  commonly  succeeds, 
partially  at  least,  in  deceiving  himself.  The  false  opinion 
wdiich  he  creates  in  those  about  him  re-acts  on  his  own  mind. 
Simon,  we  may  suppose,  like  the  generality  of  men  in  his  age, 
was  a  believer  in  the  power  of  magic,  or  theurgy ;  and,  when 
he  saw  the  miracles  performed  by  Philip,  was  filled  with  as- 
tonishment, and  regarded  him  as  operating  through  magical 
powers  unknown  to  himself.  Giving  credit,  at  the  same 
time,  to  the  accounts  of  the  miracles  of  Jesus,  he  probably 
thought  him  to  have  been  a  great  theurgist,  and  wished  to 
become   possessed   of  the  secrets   which   he   imagined   him 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         193 

to  have  communicated  to  his  (Jisciple«.  Being  confirmed  in 
this  state  of  mind  by  witnessing  the  effects  produced  by  the 
imposition  of  the  hands  of  the  apostles,  he  did  what  naturally 
occurred  to  him:  he  offered  money  to  purchase  their  disclosure. 
He  was  at  first  humbled  and  terrified  by  the  severe  rebuke 
of  Peter :  but  no  evil  immediately  followed ;  and  it  appears, 
from  the  further  accounts  of  him,  that  he  resumed  confidence, 
})ursued  his  former  course  of  life,  and  was  excited  to  set  him- 
self  up  as  a  rival  of  our  Lord. 

Of  the  particular  events  of  his  subsequent  life,  little  is 
known.  It  is  not  probable  that  he  left  any  writings  behind 
him.*  Justin  Martyr  says,  that  he  visited  Rome,  and  there 
displayed  his  pretended  magical  powers.f  Irenasus  relates, 
that  he  was  honored  by  many  as  a  god,  and  that  images  of 
him  and  Helena  —  the  former  fashioned  as  Jupiter,  and  the 
latter  as  Minerva  —  were  worshipped  by  his  followers  ;  t  and 
Justin  says,  that  there  was  at  Rome  a  statue  dedicated  to  him 
as  a  god. 

The  history  of  Simon  is  an  object  of  interest  from  the 
mention  of  him  by  St.  Luke,  and  from  his  early  connection 
with  Christianity.     The  accounts  of  him,  however,  afford  no 

*  About  the  end  of  the  fourth  century,  Jerome,  in  a  single  passage  (0pp. 
iv.  p.  i.  col.  114),  speaks  of  books  written  by  Simon  :  '"Qui  se  magnam 
dicebat  esse  Dei  virtutem;  haec  quoque  inter  caetera  in  suis  voluminibus 
scripta  dimittens:  'Ego  sum  sermo  Dei;  ego  sum  speciosus,  ego  Paracletus, 
ego  omnipotens,  ego  omnia  Dei.'  "  Except  as  a  mystical  expression  of  Pan- 
theism, the  passage  is  somewhiit  too  blasphemous  for  one  readily  to  beheve 
it  to  have  been  written  by  any  man  in  his  senses.  In  regard  to  books 
ascribed  to  Simon,  if  such  really  existed  in  Jerome's  time,  he  is  far  too  late 
an  authority  to  afford  any  proof  of  their  genuineness;  and  such  books  are 
mentioned  by  no  preceding  writer.  Beausobre  (Histoire  du  Manicheisme, 
i.  259,  260)  maintains,  what  I  doubt  not  is  true,  that  Jerome  did  not  take  his 
pretended  quotation  from  any  work  of  Simon,  nor  any  work  which  had  been 
commonly  believed  to  be  Simon's;  though,  in  doing  so,  he  has  destroyed  the 
only  evidence  for  the  opinion,  which  he  himself  expresses,  that  Simon  -wrote 
books  explanatory  of  his  doctrine  (ibid.,  p.  259). 

t  I.  Apolog.,  p.  39. 

X  Cont.  Hoeres.,  lib.  i.  c.  23,  §§  1,  4,  pp.  99,  100. 
13 


194  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

means  of  determining,  with  any  particularity  and  assurance, 
what  opinions  he  put  forward  ;  but,  whatever  he  taught  or 
affirmed,  he  did  not  rest  his  doctrine  on  the  authority  of 
Christ.  Him  he  emuhited  :  he  was  not  his  disciple.  The 
only  ground  on  which  his  followers  might  be  confounded 
with  Christians  is  indicated  in  an  account  of  Irenaeus,  that 
Simon  "  taught  that  it  was  he  himself  who  had  appeared 
among  the  Jews  as  the  Son,  had  descended  as  the  Father  in 
Samaria,  and  had  visited  other  nations  as  the  Holy  Spirit."  * 
Conformably  to  what  has  been  before  remarked,  that  the 
later  opinions  of  a  sect  were  often  ascribed  to  its  founder,  I 
suppose  this,  or  something  like  this,  to  have  been  said,  not 
by  Simon,  but  by  some  of  his  followers.  Representing  him 
as  the  Great  Power  of  God,  manifested  in  all  divine  com- 
munications to  men,  and  reckoning  Christianity  among  these 
communications,  they  thus  brought  themselves  into  some 
relation  to  it. 

But  I  imagine  them  to  have  been  held  together  as  a 
sect,  rather  by  the  admiration  of  his  supposed  powers,  by 
the  worship  of  him  as  a  divinity,  or  the  Divinity,  and  by  the 
study  and  practice  of  magical  arts,  than  by  the  profession 
of  any  system  of  doctrines.  However  numerous  they  may 
at  one  time  have  been,  they  soon  dwindled  away.  Origen 
charges  Celsus  with  error  for  speaking  of  the  Simonians 
as  a  Christian  sect.  That  writer  "  was  not  aware,"  he 
says,  "that  they  are  far  from  acknowledging  Jesus  as  the 
Son  of  God ;  but  affirm  that  Simon  was  the  Power  of  God. 
They  relate  various  marvels  of  their  master,  who  thought, 
that,  if  he  could  acquire  such  powers  as  he  believed  Jesus  to 
possess,  he  should  have  as  great  influence  over  men."  f  In 
another  place,  he  expresses  the  opinion,  that  in  his  time  there 
were  not  more  than   thirty  Simonians  in  the  world.      He 


*  Cont.  Haeres.,  lib.  i.  c.  23,  §  1,  p.  99. 
t  Cont.  Gels.,  lib.  v.  n.  62;  0pp.  i.  625, 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         195 

says,  that  a  very  few  were  living  in  Palestine  (the  successors, 
we  may  presume,  of  his  first  Samaritan  followers)  ;  but  that 
generally,  wherever  the  name  of  Simon  was  known,  it  was 
through  the  mention  of  him  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.* 
Elsewhere,  he  speaks  of  the  sect  as  having  ceased  to  exist. 
"  There  are  no  Simonians,"  he  says,  "  remaining  in  the 
world ;  though  Simon,  in  order  to  draw  after  him  a  greater 
number  of  followers,  relieved  them  from  the  danger  of  death, 
—  to  which  Christians  were  taught  to  expose  themselves,  — 
by  teaching  them  to  regard  the  worship  of  idols  as  a  matter 
of  indifference."  t  They  worshipped,  as  we  have  seen, 
images  of  Simon  and  Helena.  Irenosus  says,  what  is  alto- 
gether probable,  that  they  were  men  of  loose  lives,  devoted 
to  the  study  of  magic ;  t  and  their  magical  discipline  was 
connected,  according  to  Tertullian,§  with  paying  religious 
service  to  angels. 

Such,  I  believe,  is  the  amount  of  all  that  can  be  known, 
or  probably  conjectured,  concerning  Simon  and  his  followers. 
But,  beside  the  historical  notices  of  him,  he  is  introduced  as 
a  principal  personage  into  an  ancient  work  of  fiction,  called 
the  Clementine  Homilies.  This  work  throws  some  light  on 
the  history  and  character  of  Gnosticism  ;  but  no  one  would 
pretend,  that  it  is  of  any  authority  as  regards  the  history  of 
Simon,  or  even  as  regards  any  doctrines  he  may  have  held. 

Our  information  being  so  imperfect  and  uncertain  concern- 
ing Simon,  the  most  noted  among  all  who  have  been  repre- 
sented as  Gnostics,  either  antichristian  or  heretical,  of  the 
first  century,  we  may  be  prepared  for  the  obscurity  and 
doubt  which  cloud  over  the  history  of  other  individuals 
and   of   supposed   heretical   sects    during   the   same  period. 

*  Cont.  Gels.,  lib.  i.  n.  67,  pp.  372,  373. 
t  Ibid.,  lib.  vi.  n.  11,  p.  638. 
X  Cont.  Hseres.,  lib.  i.  c.  23,  §  4,  p.  100, 
§  De  Praescript.  Haeret.,  c.  33,  p.  214. 


196  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

Meiiander,  another  Samaritan,  is  said  to  have  been  the  suc- 
cessor of  Simon,  and  to  have  claimed,  like  him,  to  be  one  of 
the  Powers  of  God,  manifested  for  the  salvation  of  men ;  * 
and  some  stories  remain  of  an  individual  called  Dositheus, 
who,  Origen  says,  pretended  to  be  the  Jewish  Messiah.f  We 
may  conclude,  perhaps,  from  these  accounts,  that,  about  the 
time  of  Simon,  there  were  other  less  noted  impostors  of  a 
similar  character.  These,  together  with  him,  may  be  con- 
sidered as  antichristian,  not  heretical. 

Among  the  reputed  heretics  of  the  first  century,  using  the 
word  heretic  in  its  modern  sense,  there  is  none  of  whom 
the  notices  are  adapted  to  excite  any  considerable  degree  of 
interest  or  curiosity,  except  Cerinthus.  Cerinthus  is  repre- 
sented by  Irenseus,  who  first  mentions  him,  as  a  Gnostic 
leader,  contemporary  with  St.  John.  He  taught,  according 
to  Irenseus,  that  the  world  was  not  formed  by  the  Supreme 
God,  but  by  a  certain  Power,  widely  separated  from  him,  and 
io-norant  of  his  existence.  He  supposed  Jesus  not  to  have 
been  born  of  a  virgin,  but  of  Joseph  and  Mary.  He  regarded 
him  as  having  been  distinguished  from  other  men  by  superior 
wisdom  and  virtue.  Into  him,  at  his  baptism,  he  believed 
that  Christ  descended,  from  "  that  Principality  wliich  is  over 
all"  (the  Pleroma),  in  the  form  of  a  dove ;  and  that  then  he 
announced  the  Unknown  Father,  and  performed  miracles. 
Al  the  crucifixion,  Christ,  who  was  spiritual  and  impassible, 
re-ascended  from  Jesus,  and  Jesus  suffered  alone.  He  alone 
died,  and  rose  from  the  dead-f     Irenceus  also  relates  an  idle 

*  Irenfeus.  lib.  i.  c.  23,  §  5,  p.  100. 

t  Cont.  Cels.,  lib.  i.  n.  57 ;  0pp.  i.  372.  Dositheus  is  elsewhere  spoken 
of  by  Origen,  in  several  places;  but  is  not  mentioned  by  Irenaeus,  Clement 
of  Alexandria,  or  TertuUian.  —  It  may  here  be  observed,  that  the  short  ac- 
count of  heresies  published  in  the  editions  of  TertuUian,  at  the  end  of  his 
book,  De  Pr.'cscriptione  Hcereticorum,  is  not  the  work  of  that  father.  In  this 
account,  Dositheus  is  spoken  of. 

}  Cont.  Haeres.,  lib.  i.  c  26,  §  1,  p.  105. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        197 

tale,  which  he  says  some  had  heard  from  Polycarp,  that 
John,  while  residing  at  Ephesus,  on  going  to  bathe,  found 
Cerinthus  in  the  building,  and  rushed  out,  exclaiming,  "  Let 
us  fly,  lest  the  bath  should  fall  upon  us ;  Cerinthus,  the  ene- 
my of  truth,  being  within."  *  He  further  supposes,  that  one 
purpose  of  John  in  writing  his  Gospel  was  to  confute  the 
errors  of  Cerinthus.t 

In  the  account  given  by  Irenaeus  of  the  doctrines  of  Cerin- 
thus, there  is  nothing,  perhaps,  intrinsically  improbable ;  and, 
from  this  account,  it  would  appear  that  Cerinthus  held  the 
characteristic  doctrines  of  the  Gnostics.  But  the  Roman 
presbyter,  Caius,  contemporary  with  Irenaeus,  represents  him 
as  a  believer  in  a  millennium,  in  which  sensual  pleasures 
were  to  be  enjoyed,  and  affirms  him  to  have  been  the  author 
of  a  certain  book,  which  Caius  so  describes  as  to  leave,  I 
thinl£,  little  doubt  that  he  intended  the  Apocalypse.  He 
speaks  of  Cerinthus  as  one  "who,  in  Revelations,  written 
under  the  name  of  a  great  apostle,  introduced  forged  accounts 
of  marvels,  which  he  pretended  had  been  shown  him  by 
angels ;  and  taught,  that,  after  the  resurrection,  there  was  to 
be  an  earthly  reign  of  Christ,  and  that  men,  dwelling  in 
Jerusalem,  would  again  become  slaves  to  the  lusts  and  pleas- 
ures of  the  flesh."  t  In  the  last  half  of  the  third  century, 
Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  referring  probably  to  this  passage, 
says  that  some  of  those  before  him  had  ascribed  the  Apoca- 
lypse to  Cerinthus,  regarding  it  as  an  unintelligible  and  inco- 
herent book;  and  he  himself  assigns  to  Cerinthus  the  same 
Jewish  notions  concerning  the  millennium  which  Caius  had 
represented  him  as  holding.§  In  the  account  of  Irenaeus, 
Cerinthus  appears  as  an  early  Gn^ostic;  but  the  expectation 

*  Cont.  Hseres.,  lib.  iii.  c.  3,  §  4,  p.  177.  —  The  same  story  is  told  by 
Epiphauius,  not  of  Cerinthus,  but  of  Ebion.  Haeres.,  xxx.  §  23,  pp.  148, 
149. 

t  Lib.  iii.  c.  11,  §  1,  p.  188. 

X  Apud  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  iii.  c.  28.      §  Ibid.,  et  lib.  viii.  c.  25. 


198  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

of  a  millennial  reign  of  Christ  had  its  origin  in  the  belief  of 
the  Jews,  antecedent  to  Christianity,  concerning  the  temporal 
reign  of  their  Messiah.  The  doctrine  was  Jewish  in  its  origin 
and  character,  and  altogether  foreign  from  the  conceptions  of 
the  Gnostics.  They  could  not  but  revolt  at  the  idea  of 
assigning  to  their  Christ  a  glorious  reign  on  this  earth,  which, 
in  their  view,  was  the  dwelling-place  of  imperfection  and  evil, 
over  followers  reclothed  in  what  they  regarded  as  the  pollu- 
tion of  flesh.  But,  according  to  Irenseus,  Cerinthus  coincided 
with  the  Gnostics  in  holding  their  essential  doctrines  of  an 
Unknown  God,  of  an  ignorant  and  imperfect  Creator,  and 
of  the  necessity  of  a  divine  interposition  through  Christ, 
descending  from  the  pure  world  of  spirits.  But  the  strongly 
marked  character  of  the  Apocalypse  is  such  as  to  render  it 
impossible  that  it  should  have  been  written  by  a  Gnostic,  or 
by  one  holding  the  doctrines  that  Irenseus  attributes  to 
Cerinthus.  The  supposition  would  have  been  too  glaring 
an  absurdity  to  have  been  made  by  Caius,  or  countenanced 
by  Dionysius.  They,  therefore,  did  not  regard  him  as  hold- 
ing those  doctrines.  On  the  other  hand,  they  not  improbably 
considered  him  as  an  Ebionite,  according  to  one  part  of  the 
representation  which,  as  we  shall  see,  was  given  by  EpiiDha- 
nius  concerning  him. 

Cerinthus  is  not  named  (and  the  fact  is  of  importance  in 
forming  a  judgment  concerning  his  history)  by  Justin  Martyr, 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  Tertullian,  or  Origen.  From  this  we 
may  conclude,  that  he  was  not  particularly  conspicuous  in  the 
first  century ;  that  he  left  no  reputation  which  had  made 
a  deep  impression  on  the  minds  of  men ;  that  there  was  no 
considerable  body  of  heretics  bearing  his  name  in  the  second 
and  third  centuries ;  and  that  no  writings  of  his  were  extant, 
of  any  celebrity.  Probably  there  were  none  whatever ;  for 
except  a  story  of  Epiphanius  about  a  pretended  gospel,  which 
we  shall  elsewhere  have  occasion  to  examine,  none  are  re- 
ferred to  by  any  writer. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  199 

Justin  Martyr,  as  has  been  mentioned,  does  not  name 
Cerinthus.  On  the  contrary,  he  implies  his  ignorance  of  any 
individuals  who  separated  the  man  Jesus  and  the  ^on  Christ 
in  the  manner  in  which  Cerinthus  and  his  followers  are  said 
to  have  done  by  Irenoeus.  In  a  passage  in  which  he  is  speak- 
ing of  the  Gnostics  generally,  and  in  which  lie  particularly 
mentions  the  names  of  the  leading  sects,  he  describes  them  as 
"  not  teaching  the  doctrines  of  Christ,  but  those  of  the  spirits 
of  delusion  ; "  yet  "  professing  themselves  to  be  Christians, 
and  professing  that  Jesus  who  was  crucified  was  the  Lord 
and  Christ."  *  According  to  the  account  of  Irena3us,  Cerin- 
thus and  his  followers  could  have  made  no  such  profession. 
The  distinction  that  was  in  fact  supposed  by  the  theosophic 
Gnostics  between  the  iEon  Christ  and  the  man  Jesus,  Justin, 
if  it  existed  in  his  day,  overlooked  ;  and  it  could  hardly,  there- 
fore, have  been  a  doctrine  that  had  its  origin  in  the  first 
century,  when  Cerinthus  is  said  to  have  lived. 

Of  this  reputed  heretic  we  have  further  notices  in  Epipha- 
nius ;  t  but,  with  that  writer,  we  enter  the  region  of  fable. 
After  repeating,  in  effect,  the  brief  account  of  Irena^us,  he 
subjoins,  that  Cerinthus  was  a  zealot  for  the  Mosaic  Law ;  t 
though,  with  a  disregard  of  probability  common  enough  in  his 
stories,  he  states,  at  the  same  time,  that  Cerinthus  "  afiiirmed 
that  the  giver  of  the  Law  was  not  good."  §  Epiphanius, 
among  other  fictions,  pretends  that  he  was  a  leader  of  those 
Jewish  Christians,  mentioned  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  who 
contended  that  the  Gentile  converts  must  be  circumcised. 
He  thus  ascribes  to  him  the  two  opposite  heresies  of  the 
Gnostics  and  the  Ebionites.     It  may  be  noted  also,  as  re- 


*  Dial,  cum  Tryph.,  p.  207. 

t  Hseres.,  sxviii.;  0pp.  i.  110,  seqq.  J  Ibid.,  pp.  110-113. 

§  Ibid.,  p.  111.  Sucli  a  representation,  says  Massuet,  the  Benedictine 
editor  of  Irenseus,  hai'dly  obtains  credit  with  men  in  their  senses,  vix  jiJem 
apud  sobrws  obtinet.  See  his  Dissertatio  Prima  in  Libb.  Irenaii,  De  Ceriutho^ 
n.  127,  p.  53. 


200  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

markable  even  among  the  blunders  of  Epiphaniiis,  that  he 
follows  Irenaeus  in  stating  the  belief  of  Cerinthus  to  have 
been,  that  Jesus  suffered  and  rose  again,  while  Christ  returned 
to  the  Pleroma ;  *  and  shortly  after  asserts,  that  Cerinthus 
"  dared  to  affirm  that  Christ  suffered  and  was  crucified,  and 
was  not  yet  raised,  but  would  rise  in  the  general  resurrec- 
tion." t  He  concludes  by  expressing  his  uncertainty  whether 
Cerinthus  and  Merinthus  were  the  same,  or  two  different  her- 
etics. 

From  the  contradictory  accounts  of  Cerinthus ;  from  the 
silence  respecting  him  of  the  four  Christian  writers  of  highest 
eminence  during  the  period  in  which  they  lived,  —  Justin 
Martyr,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Tertullian,  and  Origen  ;  from 
the  implication  of  Justin,  that  he  knew  of  no  heretics  holding 
such  opinions  as  Irenaeus  ascribes  to  Cerinthus ;  and  from 
the  fables  which  Epiphanius  has  connected  with  his  name,  — 
we  may  infer  that  very  little  was  certainly  known  concerning 
him.  Of  the  stories  relating  to  him,  it  may  seem  the  most 
probable  solution,  that  there  was  a  heretic  of  that  name  in 
the  first  century,  of  whom  little  or  no  information  had  been 
preserved,  except  that  he  was  a  heretic ;  and  that,  it  not 
being  certainly  known  in  what  his  error  consisted,  Cerinthus 
had  hence  the  ill-fortune  to  have  ascribed  to  him  divers  con- 
tradictory heresies,  which  different  writers  supposed  to  have 
had  their  origin  in  that  early  period,  and  was  sometimes 
made  a  Gnostic,  sometimes  an  Ebionite,  and  sometimes  a 
millenarian,  and  the  forger  of  the  Apocalypse. 

From  the  fathers  we  can  derive  no  information  concerning 
the  existence  of  Gnostics  in  the  first  century,  more  satisfac- 
tory than  what  has  been  stated.     It  has  been  thought,  how 
ever,  that  there  are  references  to  them  in  the  New  Testament 
itself;  and  this  is  a  subject  that  has  been  much  discussed. 

*  Haeres.,  xxviii  p.  111.  t  Ibid.,  p.  113. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        201 

It  may  be,  that  they  are  referred  to  in  what  has  been  called 
the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter,  and  in  the  Epistle  ascribed  to 
Jude.  But  these  writings  were  not  generally  acknowledged 
by  the  early  Christians  as  the  works  of  those  apostles ;  and 
we  have  no  reason  to  assign  them  an  earlier  date  than  the 
first  half  of  the  second  century.  There  seems  to  me  no  good 
reason  for  believing  that  Gnostics  are  taken  notice  of  in  any 
genuine  writing  of  an  apostle;  nor,  I  may  here  add,  do  I 
think  it  probable  that  any  Gnostic  system  had  been  formed, 
or  any  Gnostic  sect  was  in  existence,  before  the  end  of  the 
first  century. 

In  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  the  false  teachers  and  the  false 
doctrines  that  he  refers  to  were  for  the  most  part  evidently 
of  Jewish  origin.  Nor  do  I  perceive  in  them  an  allusion 
to  any  peculiar  doctrine  of  the  Gnostics.  When  we  keep  in 
mind  what  those  peculiar  doctrines  were,  —  the  introduction 
of  an  Unknown  God ;  the  ascribing  of  the  creation,  and  of 
the  origin  of  the  Jewish  religion,  to  an  imperfect  being  or 
beings ;  the  representing  of  Christ  as  a  manifestation  of  the 
Unknown  God,  or  a  messenger  from  him,  who  merely  used 
Jesus  as  an  organ  for  his  communications,  or  had  only  the 
unsubstantial  semblance  of  a  human  body ;  and  the  specula- 
tions of  the  theosophic  Gnostics,  founded  on  hypostatizing  the 
ideas  and  attributes  of  God,  —  when  we  recollect  what  were 
the  characteristic  doctrines  of  the  Gnostics,  we  shall  perceive, 
I  think,  that  tljere  is  no  reference  to  them  in  those  passages 
in  which  St.  Paul  has  been  supposed  by  some  to  have 
had  them  in  view.  The  strong,  general  language  in  which  he 
sometimes  speaks  of  the  false  teachers  of  his  day,  though 
often  sufficiently  applicable  to  a  portion  of  the  Gnostics,  as  it 
is  to  false  teachers  of  later  times,  contains  nothing  by  which 
those  heretics  are  particularly  designated.  Had  St.  Paul 
been  acquainted  with  any  professed  expounders  of  Christian- 
ity, who  were  attempting  to  introduce  the  fundamental  doc- 
trine of  the   Gnostics,  the  doctrine  of  an  Unknown   God, 


202  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

different  from  the  God  of  the  Jews,  his  Epistles  would  have 
left  no  shadow  of  uncertainty  respecting  the  fact.  On  this 
ground  I  think  it  may  be  determined  from  them,  that  no 
heretics  of  such  a  character  existed  in  his  time. 

Nor  does  it  appear  probable,  that  the  Gnostics  are  referred 
to  by  St.  John,  in  the  introduction  to  his  Gospel.  The 
passage  has  been  explained  as  if  the  apostle  alluded  to  a 
scheme,  like  that  of  Valentinus,  concerning  the  derivation  of 
^ons  from  the  Supreme  Being.  But  there  seems  no  reason 
to  suppose  that  such  a  scheme  existed  in  the  time  of  the 
apostle.  Valentinus,  who  did  not  appear  till  somewhere 
about  thirty  years  later,  is  represented  as  the  author  of  the 
scheme  taught  by  him,  with  which  the  language' of  St.  John 
has  been  compared.  The  names  which  Valentinus  gave  to 
some  of  his  thirty  ^ons  correspond  to  names  found  in  the 
introduction  of  St.  John's  Gospel ;  but  it  is  more  probable 
that  they  were  suggested  to  him  by  this  introduction,  than  that 
the  apostle  referred  to  them  as  already  employed  by  Gnos- 
tics. The  Valentinians  made  use  of  the  passage  in  question, 
and  accommodated  it  to  their  opinions,  as  they  did  the  rest 
of  the  New  Testament,  as  far  as  was  in  their  power. 

It  has  been  especially  thought,  that  St.  John,  in  his  first 
Epistle,  animadverts  either  on  the  opinion  existing  in  the 
second  century  among  the  theosophic  Gnostics,  that  the  man 
Jesus  was  to  be  distinguished  from  the  ^on  Christ,  as  a  dis- 
tinct agent,  —  which  was  connected  with  the  doctrine,  that 
Jesus  had  not  a  proper  human  body  of  flesh  and  blood ;  or 
on  the  opinion  of  the  Docetas,  that  the  apparent  body  of 
Jesus  was  a  mere  phantom.  He  has  been  supposed  to  do  so 
in  the  passage  in  which  he  says,  "  Every  spirit  [that  is,  every 
teacher]  professing  that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah  [or  Christ] 
come'  in  the  flesh  is  from  God ;  and  every  spirit  which  pro- 
fesses not  Jesus  is  not  from   God."*     But  it  seems  to  me 

*  1  John  iv.  2,  3.    I  omit,  with  Griesbach  and  other  critics,  the  words  in 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         203 

most  probable,  that  the  apostle  merely  had  in  view  individu- 
als who  denied  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  and  objected  that 
the  Messiah  would  not  have  come,  as  Jesus  had  done,  to  lead 
a  life  of  hardship,  and  die  a  cruel  and  ignominious  death ; 
that  he  would  not  have  "  come  in  the  flesh,"  that  is,  exposed 
to  all  the  accidents  and  sufferings  of  humanity.  Perhaps, 
however,  by  the  Messiah's  "  coming  in  the  flesh,"  St.  John 
meant  nothing  more  than  that  he  had  ''appeared  in  the 
world,"  that  he  had  ''appeared  among  men."  That  the 
words  were  not  essential  to  the  main  idea  whicli  he  wished 
to  express  is  evident  from  his  omitting  them  in  a  correspond- 
ing passage,  where  he  likewise  refers  to  the  false  teachers 
to  whom  Christians  were  exposed,  and  where  he  simply 
describes  them  as  "  denying  that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah."  t 
In  this  latter  passage,  if  in  either,  one  might  suppose  him  to 
have  had  Christian  heretics  in  view ;  for  he  says  that  those 
of  whom  he  speaks  had  separated  themselves  from  the  body 
of  Christians :  $  but  it  is  clear  that  he  did  not  here  refer  to 
individuals  as  holding  any  Gnostic  doctrine,  but  to  proper 
apostates  and  unbelievers. 

It  may  appear,  therefore,  that  little  or  nothing  can  be  in- 
ferred from  any  authentic  source  to  prove  the  existence  of 
Gnostic  systems  or  sects   during   the   first  century.§      The 

the  last  clause,  answering  to  those  italicized  in  what  follows:  "And  every 
spirit  which  professes  not  that  Jesus  has  come  in  the  jiesh  is  not  from  God." 

t  1  John  ii.  22. 

X  "They  have  gone  out  from  us."  —  Ibid.  ii.  19. 

§  In  treating  of  the  heretics  of  the  first  centur}'-,  I,  of  course,  make  no  use 
of  the  pretended  Epistles  of  Ignatius,  of  which  I  shall  speak  in  sect.  vi.  of 
Note  C,  pp.  560-566.  —  Jerome  ( Advers.  Luciferianos,  Opp  iv.  pars.  ii.  col. 
304),  in  a  declamatory  passage,  full,  as  I  conceive,  of  misstatements,  asserts 
that,  "while  the  apostles  were  still  living,  while  the  blood  of  Christ  was  still 
recent  in  Judica,  it  was  maintained  that  the  body  of  Christ  Avas  a  phiintom." 
But  the  authority  of  such  a  writer,  at  the  end  of  the  fourtli  century,  is  of  no 
■weight.  Gibbon,  however,  twice  imitates  the  passage  of  Jerome,  and  repeats 
his  assertion.     (History  of  the  Roman  Empire,  chaps,  xxi.  and  xlvii  ) 


204  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

accounts  of  supposed  Gnostics  given  by  Irenaeus  and  others 
will  not  bear  the  test  of  examination,  as  we  have  seen  in  the 
^ase  of  Cerinthus ;  or  they  relate,  as  in  the  case  of  Simon 
Magus  and  Menander,  not  to  Christian  heretics,  but  to  anti- 
christian  impostors.  But  we  are  now  about  to  quit  the 
uncertain  ground  over  which  we  have  hitherto  made  our 
way,  and  enter  on  a  somewhat  more  open  road.  In  the 
earlier  part  of  the  second  century,  light  breaks  in  upon  us, 
and  individuals  and  systems  distinctly  appear.  We  likewise 
find  evidence  to  confirm  the  conclusion  to  which  we  have 
arrived,  that  the  Gnostics  did  not  before  this  time  make  their 
appearance. 

There  is  no  dispute  that  the  leading  sects  of  -the  Gnostics 
—  that  is  to  say,  the  Valentinians  and  the  Marcionites,  with 
whom  the  Basilidians  may  perhaps  be  classed  —  had  their 
origin  after  the  close  of  the  first  century. 

*•  Subsequently  to  the  teaching  of  the  apostles,"  says  Clement 
of  Alexandria,  "about  the  reign  of  Adrian  [A.D.  117-138], 
appeared  those  who  devised  heretical  opinions,  and  they  continued 
to  live  till  that  of  the  elder  Antoninus  [A.D."  138-161].  Of  this 
number  was  Basilides,  though,  as  his  followers  boast,  he  claimed 
Glaucias,  the  interpreter  of  Peter,  for  his  teacher ;  as  it  is  likewise 
reported,  that  Valentinus  was  a  hearer  of  Theodas,  who  was  famil- 
iar with  Paul.  As  for  Marcion,  who  was  their  contemporary,  he 
continued  to  remain  as  an  old  man  with  his  juniors."  * 

The  account  of  Clement  respecting  Valentinus  and  Mar 
cion  corresponds  with  what  is  said  by  Irenseus,  who  states 
that  Valentinus  "  came  to  Rome  while  Hyginus  was  bishop, 
flourished  during  the  time  of  Pius,  and  remained  till  that  of 
Anicetus.  Marcion  was  at  his  height  under  Anicetus."  f 
The  particular  dates  assigned  to  these  three  bishops  of  Rome 
are  so  various  and  uncertain  as  to  make  it  not  worth  while 


*  Stromat.,  vii.  §  17,  pp.  898,  899. 

t  Cont.  Haeres.,  lib.  iii.  c.  4,  §  3,  pp.  178,  179. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         205 

to  give  them ;  but  the  first  died  some  time  before,  and  the 
last  survived,  the  middle  of  the  second  century.  Justin 
Martyr,  who  wrote  his  first  Apology  about  the  year  150, 
twice  speaks  in  it  of  Marcion  as  then  living ;  *  and  Tertul- 
lian  refers  both  Marcion  and  Valentinus  to  the  times  of 
Antoninus  Pius-t 

The  Valentinians,  Marcionites,  and  Basilidians  are  all 
mentioned  in  the  remaining  works  of  Justin  Martyr.  In  his 
Dialogue  with  Trypho,  he  says,  that  the  existence  of  men 
who,  though  Christians  in  profession,  teach  not  the  doctrines 
of  Christ,  but  those  of  the  spirits  of  delusion,  serves  to  con 
firm  the  faith  of  the  true  believer,  because  it  is  a  fulfilment 
of  the  prophecies  of  Christ.  He  had  declared  that  false 
teachers  should  come  in  his  name,  having  the  skins  of  sheep, 
but  being  ravening  wolves  within.  "  And  accordingly,"  says 
Justin,  "  there  are  and  have  been  many  coming  in  the  name 
of  Jesus,  who  have  taught  men  to  say  and  do  impious  and 
blasphemous  things."  — "  Some  in  one  way,  and  some  in 
another,  teach  men  to  blaspheme  the  Maker  of  all,  and 
the  Messiah  who  was  prophesied  as  coming  from  him, 
and  the  God  of  Abraham  and  Isaac  and  Jacob."  In  these 
words,  Justin  refers  to  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the 
Gnostics,  that  the  maker  of  the  material  universe,  or 
the  chief  of  those  by  whom  it  was  made,  was  not  the 
Supreme  God,  but  a  being  imperfect  in  power,  wisdom, 
and  goodness  ;  that  the  same  being  was  the  god  of  the 
Jews ;  and  that  the  expected  Jewish  Messiah,  who  had  been 
foretold  as  coming  from  him,  had  been  superseded  by  an- 
other, an  unexpected  messenger  of  a  far  higher  charac- 
ter and  office,  coming  from  and  revealing  the  true  God. 
Some  of  the  heretics    mentioned,  Justin    proceeds    to   say. 


*  I.  Apolog.,  p.  43,  p.  85. 

t  Advers.  Marcion.,  lib.  i.  c.  19,  p.  374.    De  Praescript.  Haeret.,  c. 
p.  212 


206  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

"  are  called  Marcionites,  some  Valentinians,  some  BasUidians, 
some  Saturnilians,  and  others  by  different  names,  after  their 
leaders."  *  The  Saturnilians  or  followers  of  Saturn ilus,  or 
Saturninus,  as  he  is  more  commonly  called,  were  an  obscure 
sect  which  requires  no  particular  notice. 

The  Mj.rcionites  are  twice  mentioned  by  Justin  elsewhere. 
"Marcion  of  Pontus,"  he  says,  "under  the  impulse  of  evil 
demons,  is  even  now  teaching  men  to  deny  the  God  who  is 
the  Maker  of  all  things  celestial  and  terrestrial,  and  the 
Messiah  bis  Son,  who  was  foretold  by  the  prophets,  and 
proclaiming  a  certain  other  God  beside  the  Maker  of  all 
things,  and  likewise  another  Son."  f 

Beside  these  notices  of  them  in  his  remai«ing  works, 
Justin  composed,  as  he  himself  informs  us,J  a  treatise  against 
all  heresies  ;  but  this  is  not  extant.  IrenaBus  §  quotes  a  book 
of  Justin  against  Marcion,  which  was  perhaps  a  portion  of 
the  work  just  mentioned,  but  which,  whether  it  were  so  or 
not,  is  also  lost. 

Such  being  the  case,  the  most  important- authority  respect- 
ing the  history  of  the  early  heretics,  except  the  Marcionites, 
is  Justin's  contemporary,  Irenaeus.  The  large  work  of  Ire- 
naeus  which  remains  to  us  (principally  in  an  ancient  Latin 
translation)  is  occupied  by  the  statement  and  refutation  of 
their  opinions.  Though  he  gives  accounts  of  other  heresies, 
he  writes  with  particular  reference  to  the  Valentinians, 
whom  he  regarded  as  the  chief  of  the  Gnostic  sects.  ||  "  The 
doctrine  of  the  Valentinians,"  says  Irenaeus,  "  is  a  summary 
of  all  heresies,  and  he  who  confutes  those  heretics  confutes 
every  other."  T[     He  explains   at  length   their  theory  as  it 


*  Dial  cum  Tryph.,  pp.  207-209. 

t  I.  Apolog.,  p.  85;  vide  etiam  p.  43.  J  I.  Apolog.,  p.  44. 

§  Cont.  Ha:re.s  ,  lib.  iv.  c.  6,  §  2,  p   233. 
II  Ibid.,  lib.  i.  Praf.  §  2,  p.  3. 
T[  Ibid.,  lib.  iv.  Praef  §  2,  p.  227 :  conf.  lib.  ii.  c.  31,  §  1,  p.  163. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  207 

existed  in  his  day,  not  indeed  in  its  original  form,  as  it  pro- 
ceeded from  Valentinus,  but  as  it  had  been  subsequently 
modified  by  one  of  his  most  distinguished  followers,  Ptolemy. 
Afterwards,  he  gives  an  account  of  the  original  scheme  of 
Yalentinus,  which  does  not  appear  to  have  differed  in  any 
essential  particular  from  the  modification  of  it  by  Ptol- 
emy.* 

The  statements  of  Irenaeus  respecting  the  Valentinians  are 
confirmed  by  Tertullian  in  a  work  written  expressly  against 
that  sect,t  which  so  closely  resembles  the  account  of  Irenceus 
as  to  leave  little  doubt  that  he  took  this  for  the  basis  of  his 
own ;  though  there  is  no  reason  for  supposing,  that  his 
acquaintance  with  the  doctrines  of  the  Valentinians  was  de- 
rived only  from  the  writings  of  that  earlier  father.  Many 
notices  of  them  are  found  in  his  other  works,  and  in  those  of 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  of  Origen.  These  notices  con- 
firm generally  what  is  stated  by  IrenaBus,  and  add  something 
to  the  information  which  he  affords. 

We  have  also  some  remains  of  the  writings  of  Valentinians 
themselves.  The  most  important  of  them  is  a  letter  by 
Ptolemy,  preserved  by  Epiphanius4  It  is  addressed  to  a 
lady,  whose  name  was  Flora,  and  contains  an  account  of  his 
opinions  concerning  the  origin  and  character  of  the  Jewish 
Law,  and  the  god  of  the  Jews,  whom  he  identifies  with  the 
Maker  of  the  world.  However  erroneous  may  be  the  opin- 
ions of  Ptolemy,  he  expresses  himself  with  good  sense,  and 
his  manner  is  unobjectionable. 

Epiphanius  has  likewise  given  an  extract  from  the  work 
of  some  one,  whom  he  calls  a  Valentinian,  but  whose  name 
he  does  not  mention.  §  It  relates  to  the  derivation  of  the 
-ZEons.    The  writer  commences  by  professing  his  intention  to 

*  Lib.  i.  c.  11,  p.  52,  seqq.  t  Adversus  Valentinianos. 

t  Haeres.,  xxxiii.  p.  216,  seqq.  The  letter  of  Ptolemy  is  also  printed  in 
the  Appendix  to  Massuet's  edition  of  Irenaeus. 

§  Haeres.,  xxxi.  p.  168,  seqq.    Apud  Irenaei  0pp.,  ed.  Massuet,  p.  355. 


208  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

speak  of  "  things  nameless  and  supercelestial,  which  cannot 
be  fully  comprehended  by  principalities  nor  powers,  nor 
those  in  subjection,  nor  by  any  one,  but  are  manifest  only 
to  the  thought  of  the  Unchangeable ;  "  and  he  proceeds  in 
a  manner  conformable  to  this  annunciation,  so  discouraging 
to  a  common  reader.  It  is  a  very  offensive  specimen  of 
the  extravagances  of  some  of  the  Gnostics.  Epiphanius, 
as  has  been  mentioned,  ascribes  it  to  a  Valentinian.  But, 
from  its  want  of  correspondence  with  the  preceding  accounts 
of  the  different  systems  held  by  Valentinus  and  his  followers, 
it  affords  additional  proof,  either  that  the  speculations  of  the 
Valeutinians  were  continually  changing  their  form,  or  that 
the  names  of  ancient  sects  were  very  loosely  applied  in  the 
time  of  Epiphanius.* 

There  is  also  a  work  consisting,  in  great  part,  of  extracts 
from  one  or  more  writers  of  the  school  of  Valentinus.f  But 
it  is  of  less  value  than  might  be  expected.  It  presents  no 
connected  system.  Its  language  is  very  obscure ;  its  text 
appears  to  have  been  but  ill  preserved ;  and  there  is  a  diffi- 
culty in  distinguishing  between  the  words  and  sentiments  of 
the  compiler  and  those  which  he  quotes. 

Beside  the  writings  mentioned,  Origen  has  preserved  vari- 
ous passages  from  a  commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  John  by 
Ileracleon,  a  distinguished  Valentinian  of  the  second  cen- 
tury ;  and  Clement  of  Alexandria  affords  us  another  extract 


*  In  the  passage  quoted  by  Epiphanius,  there  are  allusions  of  the  grossest 
kind  in  reference  to  the  production  of  the  Jlons.  Such  language,  as  Clement 
of  Alexandria  informs  us,  was  used,  in  his  time,  by  the  followers  of  an  indi- 
vidual, named  I'rodicus;  but  Clement,  in  speaking  of  them,  exculpates  the 
VaU'utinians  from  the  imputation  of  such  impurity.  — Stromat,  iii.  §  4, 
pp.  524,  5'25. 

t  Tlie  title  of  this  compilation  is,  "  From  the  Writings  of  Theodotus.  The 
Heads  of  llie  Oriental  Doctrine,  so  called,  as  it  existed  in  the  Age  of  A^alen- 
tinus."  I  shall  quote  the  work  under  the  name  of "  Doctrina  Orientalis." 
It  may  be  found  in  Potter's  edition  of  the  Works  of  Clemeut  of  Alexandria, 
p.  9G6,  Beqq. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        209 

from  Heracleon,  and  a  few  extracts  from  the  works  of  Valen- 
tinus  himself.* 

Of  the  opinions  of  Marcion  and  his  followers,  our  informa- 
tion is  nearly  or  quite  as  ample.  Irenseus.  indeed,  gives  but 
a  short  account  of  them ;  it  having  been  his  intention,  as 
he  states,  to  refute  that  heretic  in  a  separate  treatise.  This 
work,  if  he  ever  accomplished  it,  which  is  not  probable,  is 
now  lost.  The  reasons  which  he  assigns  for  discussing  Mar- 
cion's  system  by  itself  deserve  attention.  He  says,  "  Because 
Marcion  alone  has  dared  openly  to  mutilate  the  Scriptures, 
and  has  gone  beyond  all  others  in  shamelessly  disparaging  the 
character  of  God  [the  Creator],  I  shall  oppose  him  by  himself, 
confuting  him  from  his  own  writings  ;  and,  with  the  help  of 
God,  effect  his  overthrow  by  means  of  those  discourses  of  our 
Lord  and  his  apostle  [St.  Paul]  which  are  respected  by  him, 
and  which  he  himself  uses."  f  Iii  speaking  of  Marcion's  dis- 
paraging the  character  of  God,  Irenaeus  refers,  as  will  be 
readily  understood,  not  to  Marcion's  opinions  concerning  the 
Supreme  Being,  but  to  his  opinions  concerning  that  inferior 
agent  whom  the  Gnostics  conceived  of  as  the  Maker  of  the 
world.  In  the  view  of  Irenaeus,  the  Supreme  God  and 
the  Maker  of  the  world  being  the  same,  what  was  said 
unworthily  of  the  latter  he  regarded  as  virtually  said  of 
the  former. 

The  information  respecting  the  Marcionites  which  we  miss 
in  Irenaeus  is  abundantly  supplied  by  Tertullian  in  his  long 
and  elaborate  treatise,  "  Against  Marcion ; "  a  composition 
that  so  clearly  exhibits  the  workings  of  a  powerful  mind, 
in  which  striking  thoughts  are  presented  with  such  condensa- 
tion of  language,  expressions  stand  out  in  such  bold  relief. 


*  These  fragments  of  Heracleon  and  Valentinus  are  collected  in  the 
Appendix  to  Massuet's  edition  of  Irenaeus. 
t  Cont.  Hieres.,  lib.  i.  c.  27,  §  4,  p.  106. 
U 


210  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

and  arguments  are  sometimes  so  rapidly  developed,  as,  not- 
withstanding a  difficult  style  and  a  corrupt  text,  to  fix  the 
attention,  and  create  an  interest  in  the  exposition  and  confu- 
tation of  obsolete  errors.  Of  Marcion  and  his  followers  we 
find  mention,  likewise,  in  other  works  of  Tertullian,  and  in 
those  of  Clement  and  of  Origen  ;  and,  in  addition  to  what 
is  given  by  Tertullian,  Epiphanius  affords  some  further  infor- 
mation, which  there  is  no  particular  reason  to  distrust,  re- 
specting Marcion's  mutilations  of  the  New  Testament. 

As  regards  other  Gnostic  sects  existing  in  the  second  cen- 
tury, our  principal  information  must  be  derived  from  the  ear- 
lier fathers  who  have  been  mentioned,  —  Irenaeus,  Tertullian, 
Clement,  and  Origen.*  For  the  most  part,  the  later  fathers 
who  have  written  concerning  the  Gnostics  either  copy  their 
predecessors,  or  present  us,  instead  of  facts,  with  misconcep- 
tions, fictions,  and  calumnies  ;  or  perhaps  report,  under  some 
ancient  name,  the  doctrines  and  practices  ascribed  to  supposed 
individuals  of  their  own  day,  who,  if  such  individuals  really 
existed,  had  little  in  common  with  those  by-whom  the  name 
given  to  them  had  been  formerly  borne.  If  we  would  have 
any  just  conceptions  of  Christian  antiquity,  we  must  never 
lose  sight  of  the  distinction  between  the  earlier  and  the  later 
fathers,  —  between  those  who  wrote  before,  and  those  who 
wrote  after,  the  establishment  of  Christianity  as  the  religion 
of  the  empire.  It  has  been  greatly  neglected.  It  admits  of 
particular  exceptions  and  much  qualification  in  favor  of  indi- 
viduals. But,  generally,  a  wide  separation  is  to  .be  made 
between  the  patient  or  stern  sufferers  of  the  ages  of  persecu- 


•  I  liave  already  liad  occasion  to  mention  the  addition  by  another  ^vriter 
to  Tertiilliairs  work,  De  IVivscriptione.  (See  p.  19G,  note  f.)  Tlie  date  of  its 
composition  is  uncertain.  It  is  a  brief  summary  of  some  of  the  common 
accounts  of  the  heretical  sects,  evidently  made  with  little  investigation,  and, 
consequently,  of  little  value.  An  undue  weight  is  sometimes  given  it,  by  its 
being  quoted  as  if  written  by  Tertullian. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         211 

tion,  whose  religion  was  the  principle  of  their  lives,  and  the 
courtier  bishops  who  frequented  the  imperial  palace,  the  fac- 
tious and  virulent  party-leaders  who  rent  the  Church  with 
their  dissensions,  and  the  fiery  ascetics  to  whom  monastic 
superstition  gave  birth. 

Of  the  later  writers  concerning  the  Gnostics,  the  first  to  be 
mentioned  is  Epiphanius,  Bishop  of  Salamis  in  Cyprus  during 
the  latter  part  of  the  fourth  century,  and  the  author  of  a  large 
work  "  Against  Eighty  Heresies."  He  was  a  zealot  of  a 
mean  mind  and  persecuting  temper.  He  had  a  childish  love 
of  multiplying  the  sects  and  names  of  the  heretics,  and  was 
unsparing  in  loading  them  with  opprobrium.  He  was,  un- 
doubtedly, credulous,  and  has  sometimes  told  in  good  faith 
what  cannot  be  believed  ;  but  the  stories  that  he  relates  on 
his  own  authority  show  that  his  want  of  truth  was  equal  to 
his  want  of  good  sense.  In  some  of  those  charges  which  he 
is  ever  ready  to  bring  against  the  heretics,  he  discovers  a 
mind  familiar  with  the  most  loathsome  conceptions  of  impu- 
rity. His  work,  at  the  same  time,  is  full  of  blunders  and 
contradictory  statements,  arising  from  ignorance,  negligence, 
and  want  of  capacity.  Still  something  may  be  learnt  from  it ; 
and  the  testimony  of  Epiphanius  may  deserve  attention,  when 
his  reports  are  intrinsically  probable,  when  they  coincide  with 
and  complete  the  information  of  some  more  credible  writer, 
when  they  are  in  opposition  to  his  own  prejudices,  or  in  cases 
in  which  there  was  no  temptation  to  falsehood  and  small 
liability  to  mistake.  Sometimes,  also,  we  may  form  a  prob- 
able conjecture,  by  considering  on  what  facts  a  particular 
misrepresentation,  coming  from  a  writer  of  such  a  character, 
was  likely  to  be  founded.  Even  where  his  accounts  in  their 
gross  state  are  false,  it  has  been  found  possible,  by  combining 
them  with  the  information  received  from  others,  by  subject- 
ing them  to  an  analysis  and  applying  the  proper  tests,  to 
detect  and  separate  a  portion  of  truth. 


212  EVIDENCES   OP  THE 

We  pass  to  a  work  on  heresies,  entitled  "A  Dialogue 
concerning  the  Right  Faith  in  God,"  —  De  Recta  in  Deum 
Fide*  This  has  sometimes  been  regarded  as  a  work  of  Ori- 
gen  :  but  it  is  the  production  of  a  later  writer,  who  lived  after 
the  establishment  of  Christianity  as  the  religion  of  the  empire, 
and  appears  to  have  borne,  like  Origen,  the  name  of  Adaman- 
tius ;  it  being  now  ascribed  in  its  title  to  an  author  of  that 
name.  In  determining  the  opinions  of  the  ancient  heretics, 
too  much  credit  has  been  given  to  this  work,  which  deserves 
little  or  no  consideration  when  its  accounts  are  inconsistent 
with  those  of  the  earlier  fathers.  It  is  the  production  of  one 
who  was  very  imperfectly  acquainted  with  the  real  doctrines 
of  the  Gnostics,  if  he  meant  to  represent  them  correctly,  and 
who  has,  in  consequence,  improperly  assigned  to  different 
sects  opinions  which  it  was  his  purpose  to  confute. 

In  the  latter  half  of  the  fourth  century,  a  work  on  heresies 
was  composed  by  Philaster,  Bishop  of  Brescia  in  Italy,  a 
writer  of  the  lowest  order.  It  is  full  of  almost  pitiable  weak- 
nesses. His  reputation,  for  some  reputation  he  had,  serves 
to  show  how  low  the  human  intellect  had  sunk  in  his  age 
within  the  limits  of  the  Western  Empire. 

His  work  is,  however,  quoted  as  a  main  source  of  informa- 
tion on  the  subject  by  Augustin,  who  has  left  a  name  indel- 
ibly impressed  on  the  history  of  the  world,  and  who,  in  the 
first  half  of  the  fifth  century,  likewise  wrote  on  heretics.  But 
his  "  Catalogue  of  Heresies,"  as  it  is  entitled,  is  merely  a 
synopsis,  apparently  a  hasty  production,  composed  without 
any  critical  inquiry.  It  is  of  no  authority,  containing  little 
which  is  not  taken  from  Epiphanius  or  Philaster;  and  it 
even  appears  that  he  was  ignorant  of  the  existence  of  the 
whole  work  of  Epiphanius.     His  description  of  the  book 


•  It  is  published  in  the  first  volume  of  De  la  Rue's  edition  'f  Origen. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        213 

which  he  used  is  applicable  only  to  an  epitome  of  it.*  He 
probably  consulted  some  manuscript  which  contained  in  a 
Latin  translation  (for  he  was  ignorant  of  Greek)  only  the 
synopses  that  Epiphanius  has  prefixed  to  the  different  divis- 
ions of  his  work.  It  is  evident  that  he  did  not  write  from 
any  personal  knowledge  of  Gnostics  as  existing  in  his  time. 

In  the  fifth  century,  likewise,  Theodoret,  who  holds  a  high 
rank  among  the  later  Greek  fathers,  composed  a  treatise  on 
the  heretics,  in  five  books-f  The  first  three  books  relate  to 
those  whom  he  calls  ancient  heretics,  —  the  Gnostics  and  the 
Manichaeans ;  the  Ebionites,  and  those  who  believed  with 
them  that  Christ  was  only  a  man ;  and  some  others,  whom 
he  ranks  with  neither  class.  Concerning  these  ancient  here- 
tics, he  professes  to  have  compiled  his  information  from  older 
writers,  —  Justin  Martyr,  Irenseus,  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
Origen,  Eusebius  the  ecclesiastical  historian,  Eusebius  of 
Emesa,  Adamantius  (the  author  of  the  Dialogue  De  Recta 
Fide),  and  others  of  less  note,  whose  works  are  lost.  It  is 
perhaps  a  proof  of  his  good  sense,  that  he  does  not  name 
Epiphanius  as  an  authority.  He  speaks  of  the  ancient  sects, 
preceding  the  time  of  Arius,  as  being  for  the  most  part  ex- 
tinct; and  apprehends  that  he  may  be  blamed  by  some  for 
having  "  brought  them  again  from  the  darkness  of  oblivion 
into  the  light  of  memory."  %  He  says,  that  God,  permitting 
the  evil  seed  to  be  sown,  had  turned  the  greater  part  of  the 
tares  into  wheat,  so  that  most  places  were  free  from  the  Gnos- 
tic heresies ;  the  remaining  disciples  of  Valentinus  and  of 
Marcion,  and  likewise  the  Manichaeans,  being  few,  easily 
numbered,  and  thinly  scattered  in  certain  cities.§     In  various 


*  0pp.  (Basil.,  1569)  vi.  col.  10. 

t  Hsereticarum  Fabularum  Compendium,  in  the  fourth  volume  of  Sir- 
mond's  edition  of  his  works. 

X  Epist.  Praefat.  ad  Sporacium,  pp.  188,  189. 
§  Haeret.  Fab.,  lib.  ii.  Praefat.  p.  218. 


214  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

places  he  expresses  himself  to  the  same  effect.  The  ancient 
heresies,  he  informs  us,  had  passed  out  of  notice ;  they  had 
either  been  "  rooted  up,  or  remained,  like  half- withered  trees, 
in  a  few  cities  and  villages."  * 


*  Lib.  iii.  Prafat.  p.  22G;  lib.  iii.  {adfinem),  p.  132;  lib.  iv.  Praefat.  p.  232. 
Certain  assertions,  however,  in  the  Epistles  of  Theodoret  may  appear,  at 
first  sight,  irreconcilable  with  those  quoted  above.  In  one  place  (Epist. 
Ixxxi.,  0pp.  iii.  pars.  ii.  p.  954),  he  says  he  had  converted  the  inhabitants  of 
eight  villages,  together  Avith  those  of  the  neighboring  country,  from  the 
heres}'  of  Marcion,  and  bi'ouglit  them  over  willingly  to  the  truth;  in  another 
(Epist.  cxiii.  pp.  986,  987),  that,  during  the  twentj'-six  years  he  had  been 
bishop,  he  had  ''  delivered  more  than  a  thousand  souls  from  the  disease  of 
Marcion,"  —  adding,  that  all  heresy  was  thoroughly  extirpated  from  the 
churches  under  hTs  charge;  and  in  a  third  (Epist.  cxlv.  p.  1026),  that,  by 
his  controversial  writings  against  them,  he  had  made  orthodox  Christians  of 
moro  than  a  myriad  of  Marcionites,  —  which,  of  coarse,  may  be  considered  as 
an  extravagant  rhetorical  amplitication.  It  is  an  obvious  remark,  that  a  sect 
must  have  been  already  falling  to  pieces,  from  which  converts  were  made  so 
readily.  It  is  probable,  likewise,  that  Theodoret,  who,  in  these  Epistles,  is 
defending  himself  against  his  enemies,  and  enumerating  his  services  and 
labors  as  bishop,  not  only  exaggerated  in  the  estimate  of  numbers,  but 
applied  the  name  jNIarcionite  very  loosely.  The  remains  of  the  Marcionites, 
however,  from  the  more  simple  doctrines  and  stricter  morality  and  discipline 
of  the  sect,  were  likely  to  survive  those  of  the  other  Gnostics. 

Another  pa.ssage  of  one  of  Theodoret's  Epistles  has  been  referred  to 
(Priestley's  History  of  Early  Opinions,  vol.  i.  p.  148),  as  proving  that  the 
Gnostics  were  reviving  in  his  time.  But  the  passage  has  been  misunder- 
stood. Tiieodoret  says,  "  Those  who,  at  the  present  time,  have  renewed  the 
heresy  of  Marcion  and  Valentinus  and  Manes,  and  the  other  Docetae,  being 
angry  with  me  for  publicly  exposing  their  heresy,  have  endeavored  to  de- 
ceive the  emperor"  (Epist.  Ixxxii.  p.  955).  He  is  here  speaking,  not  of  any 
proper  Gnostics,  but  of  his  enemies,  the  Eutychians,  at  that  time  the  domi- 
nant party  in  the  Churcli.  With  reference  to  their  opinions  respecting  tlm 
person  of  Christ,  he  elsewhere  describes  them  as  endeavoring  to  plant  anew 
the  heresy  of  Valentinus  and  Bardesanes,  which  had  been  rooted  out  (Epist. 
cxlv  p.  1024).  In  his  work  on  Heresies,  likewise,  he  says,  that  Satan,  by 
means  of  "  the  miserable  Eutyches,  had  caused  the  heresy  of  Valentinus, 
withered  long  ago,  to  flower  again"  (Ha^ret.  Fab.,  lib.  iv.  n.  13;  0pp.  iv. 
246. 

These  passages  illustrate  the  loose  manner  in  which  the  names  of  ancient 
Gnostic  sects  were  applied  in  later  times,  and  ser\'e  to  show  that  they  Avere 
sometimes  used  as  mere  terms  of  reproach  toward  those  who  were  regarded 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        215 

Beside  the  writers  who  have  been  mentioned,  and  of  whose 
respective  authority  it  has  been  my  purpose  to  give  some 
estimate,  there  are  notices  of  the  Gnostics,  though  not  of  much 
value,  in  Eusebius's  Ecclesiastical  History ;  and  some  informa- 
tion concerning  them  is  scattered,  here  and  there,  in  the 
writings  of  other  later  fathers.  But,  in  general,  it  is  little  to 
be  relied  on. 

In  addition,  likewise,  to  what  is  said  of  them  by  Christian 
writers,  we  find  some  notices  of  them  in  the  works  of  the 
heathen  opponents  of  Christianity.  Celsus  brought  forward, 
as  objections  to  Christianity,  their  real  or  pretended  doctrines, 
in  his  work  which  was  answered  by  Origen.  In  one  place, 
as  quoted  by  Origen,*  he  says, "  Let  no  one  think  me  ignorant, 
that  some  of  the  Christians  agree  that  their  God  is  the  same 
with  the  God  of  the  Jews,  while  others  maintain  one  opposite 
to  him,  from  whom  they  say  that  the  Son  came." 

In  the  third  century,  Gnostics,  and  individuals  holding  some 
of  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Gnostics,  were  made  a 
subject  of  remark  by  the  later  Platonists,  Plotinus  and 
Porphyry.  After  the  death  of  Plotinus,  Poi-phyry  reduced 
into  some  form,  and  gave  some  finish  to,  the  crude  mass  of  his 
writings,  which  he  had  left  unpublished,  and  prefixed  to  them 
an  account  of  his  life.  In  this  account,  he  says  that  there 
were  in  the  time  of  Plotinus  many  Christians,  and  other 
sectaries,  drawn  away  from  the  ancient  philosophy,  the  fol- 
lowers of  Adelphius  and  Acylinus,  two  individuals  of  whom 
we  have  no  further  knowledge.  These  sectaries  used  the 
works  of  writers  whose  names  Porphyry  gives,  but  of  whom 
nothing  now  remains  except  their  names.  They  likewise,  he 
states,  had  books  entitled  Revelations,  ascribed  to  Zoroaster  f 

as  coinciding  with  the  Gnostics  in  flome  one  of  their  opinions.     A  similar  use 
of  opprobrious  appellations  has  at  all  times  been  common. 

*  Cont.  Cels.,  lib.  v.  n.  61;  0pp.  i.  624. 

t  Many  spurious  works  were  about  this  time  ascribed  to  Zoroaster.    Of 


216  EVIDENCES  OP  THE 

and  others.  "Being,"  he  says,  "deceived  themselves,  they 
deceived  many,  pretending  that  Plato  had  not  penetrated  to 
the  depth  of  the  essence  of  intelligiblesr  Plotinus,  he  informs 
us,  had  written  a  treatise  concerning  them,  which  he,  in  his 
arrangement  of  Plotinus's  works,  had  entitled  "  Against  the 
Gnostics."*  But  in  the  manuscripts  of  this  treatise  there  is 
found  another  title,  more  precise  and  appropriate,  which  de- 
scribes it  as  "  Against  those  who  affirm  that  the  World  and  its 
Maker  are  Bad."  Porphyry  says,  that  he  had  himself  proved 
at  length,  that  the  work  ascribed  to  Zoroaster  was  spurious, 
having  been  lately  fabricated  by  those  sectaries.f  It  may  be 
remarked,  that  Clement  of  Alexandria  says,  that  the  followers 
of  Prodicus,  a  most  immoral  sect  of  pseudo-Gnos'tics,  boasted 
of  possessing  the  secret  writings  of  Zoroaster.  % 

Plotinus,  in  the  tract  referred  to,  represents  those  against 
whom  he  is  writing  as  believing  that  the  sensible  universe 
was  badly  formed  by  an  imperfect  and  erring  power,  sinking 
downward,  as  it  were,  with  failing  wings.  §  He  himself  taught 
that  it  was  eternal,  without  beginning  or  end.  He  refers 
particularly  to  doctrines  concerning  its  formation,  coincident 
with  those  ascribed  to  the  Valentinians  by  Irenaeus,  |1  which 
will  be  hereafter  explained.  In  reference  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  Gnostics  concerning  JEons,  or  hypostatized  attributes  and 
ideas,  emanent  from  God,  and  belonging  to  the  totality  of  his 
nature,  he  objects,  that,  under  pretence  of  investigating  more 
accurately,  they  so  divided  the  intelligihle  nature  into  this 
multitude  of  beings  as  to  make  it  like  the  sensible.     The 

these,  his  "  Oracles  "  alone  are,  in  part,  extant.  They  may  be  found  at  the 
end  of  Stanley's  "History  of  Philosoph3\"  But  they  are  not  the  work 
referred  to  above.  They  contain  nothing  peculiarly  Gnostic,  but  are  con- 
formed to  the  doctrine  of  the  later  Platonists,  and  are  quoted  with  admiration 
by  Proclus,  and  other  writers  of  that  school. 

*  Now  forming  the  ninth  book  of  the  second  Ennead  of  his  Works, 
p.  199,  scqq. 

t  Plotini  Vita,  vbi  sup.  J  Stromat.,  i.  §  15,  p.  357. 

§  Cont.  Gnost.,  §  4,  p.  202,  passim.         ||  Ibid.,  §  4,  p.  202,  ^  10,  p.  209. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  217 

division,  he  says,  should  be  as  small  as  possible,  into  not  more 
than  three''''  (the  trinity  of  the  later  Platonists).  He  dwells 
upon  their  blaming  the  constitution  and  government  of  the 
world.f  He  speaks  of  their  hating  the  body,  t  He  says  that 
they  used  magical  arts.  §  And  he  represents  their  doctrines 
as  strongly  tending  to  produce  bad  morals.  || 

In  all  this,  so  far  as  it  goes,  there  is  sufficient  agreement 
with  the  representations  of  the  fathers  concerning  tlie  Gnos- 
tics.    But  there  is  no  evidence  that  Plotinus  was  writinfi: 

o 

against  Christian  heretics.  Nothing  is  said  by  him  concerning 
that  essential  part  of  the  scheme  of  the  Gnostics  which  was 
founded  on  Christianity.  The  doctrines  attacked  by  him 
might  have  been,  and  probably  were,  all  held  by  heathen 
speculatists  ;  and  to  such  there  seems  little  doubt  that  he 
primarily  referred.  He  nowhere  uses  the  name  of  Gnostic 
or  Christian  in  this  discussion.  He  nowhere,  throughout  his 
writings,  makes  any  direct  and  open  attack  on  Christians,  or 
expressly  recognizes  their  existence.  Thus  leaving  the  great 
body  of  Christians  unassailed,  it  is  not  likely  that  he  would 
have  entered  into  a  labored  controversy  with  heretics,  dis- 
avowed by  them,  though  claiming  the  Christian  name,  and  not 
recognized  as  proper  heathen  philosophers,  who  consequently 
could  hardly  have  been  thought  by  him  worthy  of  so  much 
attention.  There  are  doubtless  in  his  tract  "Against  the 
Gnostics  "  positions  asserted  contrary  to  Christian  truth,  or  to 
what  was  then  the  common  belief  of  Christians ;  as,  for  in- 
stance, he  in  one  place  expressly  defends  polytheism,  If  and 
in  another  argues  against  ascribing  diseases  to  the  agency  of 
demons :  **  but  this  does  not  prove  that  the  writer  had  Chris- 
tian heretics  particularly  in  view.     In  supporting  his  own 

*  Ibid.,  §  6,  p.  204.  f  Ibid.,  §  12,  p.  211;  §  15,  p.  21S, passim, 

t  Ibid.,  §  17,  p.  215,  seqq.  §  Ibid.,  §  14,  p.  212. 

II  Ibid.,  §  15,  p.  213.  TT  Ibid.,  §  9,  p.  207. 
♦♦  Ibid.,  §  14,  pp.  212,  213. 


218  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

philosophy,  he  could  not  but  advance  what  was  opposite  to 
Christianity,  and  to  the  opinions  of  Christians.  He  speaks 
of  those  holding  the  doctrines  against  which  he  particularly 
wrote,  as  being,  some  of  them,  friends  of  his  own,  who  had 
adopted  those  opinions  before  they  became  his  friends  *  If 
any  Christian  heretics  had  become  friends  of  Plotinus,  —  a  cir- 
cumstance very  improbable,  —  we  can  hardly  doubt,  that  in 
controverting  their  peculiar  doctrines,  bearing  throughout  a 
relation  to  Christianity,  he  would  have  distinctly  brought  into 
view  the  fiict  of  their  being  Christians.  Porphyry  says,  that 
those  against  whom  his  master  wrote  were  followers  of 
Adelphius  and  Acylinus.  Neither  of  these  names,  nor  any 
that  may  plausibly  be  substituted  for  the  latter  of  the  two  if 
it  be  an  error  of  transcription,  as  has  been  supposed,  is  found 
anywhere  in  the  writings  of  the  fathers  as  that  of  the  founder 
of  a  Gnostic  sect.  Nor  is  the  use  of  any  of  the  books,  men- 
tioned by  Porphyry  as  current  among  the  sectaries  of  whom 
he  speaks,  ascribed  by  the  fathers  to  any  of  the  Gnostics ; 
unless  the  Revelations  of  Zoroaster  should  be  supposed  an 
exception  to  this  remark,  on  the  ground  of  the  statement  of 
Clement,  that  the  secret  writings  of  Zoroaster  were  used  by 
the  followers  of  Prodicus.  But  the  followers  of  Prodicus 
were  not,  I  conceive,  Christians. 

Thus  we  have  seen  from  what  writers  our  information  con- 
cerning the  history  of  the  Gnostics  is  to  be  derived,  and  how 
their  respective  authority  is  to  be  estimated.  If  the  views 
that  have  been  taken  are  correct,  it  is  clear  that  these  writers 
are  not  to  be  adduced  indiscriminately.  We  cannot  gain  a 
correct  knowledge  of  the  Gnostics  from  a  modern  account,  in 
which  the  statements  of  Epiphanius,  Philaster,  Augustin, 
and  Thcodoret  are  blended,  as  of  equal  value,  with  those  of 
IreniEus,  Clement,  Tertullian,  and  Origen. 


*  Coat.  Gnost,  §  10,  p.  209 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        219 

From  what  has  been  said,  we  condude  that  there  are  no 
distinct  traces  of  the  existence  of  Gnostic  sects  or  systems 
during  the  first  century.  But,  before  the  middle  of  the  second 
century,  the  Gnostics  became  a  well-recognized  body,  their 
most  distinguished  leaders  appeared,  and  their  opinions  were 
formed  into  different  systems.  From  the  writers  of  this  cen- 
tury and  the  next,  to  Origen  inclusive,  our  principal  authentic 
information  concerning  them  is  to  be  derived.  At  the  same 
time,  it  is  only  with  the  opinions  of  the  Gnostics  of  the  first 
three  centuries  concerning  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels 
that  we  are  concerned.  Those  of  the  Gnostics  of  a  later 
period  require  no  particular  investigation,  and  throw  no  light 
on  the  subject.  In  the  latter  part  of  the  third  century,  the 
sect  of  the  Manichasans  arose,  nearly  allied  to  that  of  the  Gnos- 
tics, but  presenting  a  bolder  and  broader  theory  of  the 
universe,  which  cast  into  the  shade  the  system  of  their  prede- 
cessors. The  names  of  ancient  Gnostic  sects,  however,  still 
remained  in  the  fourth  century,  sometimes,  we  may  believe, 
voluntarily  assumed,  and  sometimes  imposed  as  names  of 
obloquy ;  but  it  may  be  doubted,  whether  the  tenets  of  the 
sects  originally  denoted  by  those  names  ^ad  not,  in  many 
cases,  undergone  great  modifications  among  their  reputed 
successors.  By  the  writers  of  this  century,  the  Gnostics  are, 
I  think,  generally  treated  of  in  a  manner  that  implies  rather 
their  past  existence  than  their  actual  prevalence.  Their 
history  became  full  of  mistakes  and  falsehoods.  From  the 
third  to  the  fifth  century,  they  were  probably  dwindling  away  ; 
and  in  the  fifth  century,  in  the  time  of  Theodoret,  they  seem, 
with  the  exception  of  some  remaining  Marcionites,  nearly  to 
have  disappeared.  Indeed,  according  to  Gregory  Nazianzen, 
they  had  ceased  to  disturb  the  Church  before  the  Arian  con- 
troversy arose,  in  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century. 
Speaking   of  the   period    immediately  preceding,   he   says,* 

*  Orat.  xxiii. ;  0pp.  i  414,  ed.  Morelli. 


220  ETIDENCES    OF   THE 

"  There  was  a  time  when  we  had  rest  from  heresies ;  when 
the  Simonians  and  Marcionites,  the  Valentinians,  the  Basili- 
dians,  and  the  followers  of  Cerdo,  the  Cerinthians  and  Carpo- 
cratians,  with  all  their  idle  and  monstrous  doctrines,  their 
complete  division  of  the  God  of  All,  and  opposing  of  the 
Good  God  to  the  Creator,  were  swallowed  up  in  their  own 
Abyss,  and  given  over  to  Silence."  In  the  last  clause,  there 
is  a  play  upon  words ;  BvOog,  the  Depth,  or  the  Abyss,  being 
the  name  given  by  the  Valentinians  to  the  Supreme  Being, 
who  was  represented  by  them  as  having  dwelt  from  eternity 
with  the  ^on,  Silence*  After  the  quotation  just  made, 
Gregory  speaks  of  the  decline  of  other  heresies  extant  in  the 
third  century ;  and  then  says,  "  After  a  short  interval,  a  new 
tempest  rose  against  the  Church,"  —  the  Arian  heresy.  He 
does  not  represent  the  old  heresies  as  ever  reviving.  The 
passage  from  which  I  have  quoted  is  undoubtedly  rhetorical 
and  inexact ;  but  we  can  hardly  infer  less  from  it  than  that 
the  Gnostic  heresy  was  dwindling  away  during  the  fourth 
century.  In  the  Code  of  Justinian,  however,  among  the 
edicts  against  heretics,t  the  names  of  ancient  Gnostic  sects 
occur ;  but  how  far  those  to  whom  they  were  applied  resem- 
bled the  Gnostics  of  the  second  and  third  centuries,  may 
appear,  from  what  has  been  before  said,  to  be  very  ques- 
tionable. 

Respecting  the  number  of  the  Gnostics  at  the  time  when 
they  were  most  numerous,  we  have  no  means  of  approximating 
to  any  precise  computation  ;  but  many  considerations  show 
that  it  must  have  borne  but  a  small  proportion  to  that  of  the 
catholic  Christians.  The  doctrines  of  the  theosophic  Gnostics 
were  of  such  a  nature,  that  they  were  little  likely  to  be  em 
braced  except  by  men  of  a  peculiar  turn  of  mind,  somewhat 


*  The  same  play  upon  words  expressive  of  the  same  fact  is  in  Theodoret: 
Haeret.  Fab.,  lib.  iv.  Praifat.  p.  232.  f  Lib.  i.  tit.  5. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        221 

accustomed  to  the  pliilosophical  speculations  of  the  age; 
especially  as  the  character  of  that  age,  and  the  external  cir- 
cumstances of  Christians,  did  not  favor  the  aifectation  of 
mysticism,  or  the  pride  of  holding  novel  theories,  among  the 
unlearned.  Ptolemy,  the  Valentinian,  in  the  beginning  of  his 
letter  to  Flora,  before  mentioned,  says  that  "  not  many  have 
a  right  apprehension  of  the  Law  given  by  Moses,"  —  meaning, 
that  not  many  adopted  the  Gnostic  opinions  concerning  it. 
The  followers  of  Basilides  atrirmed,  according  to  Irenaaus,  that 
"  few  could  understand  their  mysteries,  —  one  only  in  a  thou- 
sand, and  two  in  ten  thousand ; "  and  added,  "  that  tlie  Jews 
had  ceased  to  be,  but  Christians  were  not  as  yet."  *  In  the 
Doctrina  Orientalis,^  Theodotus,  or  some  other  Gnostic, 
referring  to  a  division  of  men  into  three  classes,  made  by 
the  Valentinians,  says,  that  "the  earthy  are  numerous,  the 
rational  X  [which  class  included  common  Christians]  are  not 
numerous,  and  the  spiritual  [the  Gnostics]  are  rare."§ 
These  statements  correspond  to  the  common  representation 
of  the  theosophic  Gnostics,  that  their  peculiar  doctrines  were 
the  esoteric  doctrines  of  Christianity,  which  had  been  privately 
handed  down  to  those  capable  of  receiving  them. 

What  has  been  said  applies  more  particularly  to  the  theo- 
sophic Gnostics.  'As  regards  the  Marcionites,  they  were 
distinguished  for  their  abstinence  from  worldly  pleasures. 
Marriage  was  not  tolerated  among  them.  Those  united  by  it 
were  obliged  to  separate,  on  becoming  members  of  their  com- 
munity. ||  Their  bold  doctrines  were  opposed  without  dis- 
guise to  the  common  belief,  and  to  the  plain  language  of  the 
Gospels,  and  were  little  likely  to  be  received  except  by  indi- 
viduals possessed  of  more  than  usual  hardihood  of  mind.     In 

*  Contra  Hasres.,  lib,  i.  c  24,  §  6,  p.  102.         t  See  before,  p.  208,  note  f. 

X  Oi  ipvxtKoL  §  Doctrina  Orientalis,  §  56,  p.  983. 

II  Clement.  Al.  Stromat.,  iii.  §  3,  p.  515,  seq.,  §  4.  p.  522,  §  6,  p.  529,  §  6, 
p.  531,  seqq.  Tertullian.  advers.  Marcion.,  lib.  i.  c.  29,  pp.  880,  381;  lib.  iv. 
C.  11,  p.  422,  c.  23,  p.  438,  c.  34,  p.  450;  lib.  V.  c.  7,  p.  469,  c.  15,  p.  480. 


222  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

the  practice  of  their  self-denying  virtues  or  extravagances, 
they  were  not  encouraged,  as  others  have  been,  by  popular 
admiration.  On  the  contrary,  they  were  objects  of  odium. 
They  had  no  support  but  from  among  themselves.  They 
were  rejected  by  the  catholic  Christians  as  heretics,  and  by 
the  Heathens  they  were  persecuted  as  Christians.  They 
were  very  conscientious,  but  very  erroneous  believers.  Such 
a  sect  we,  must  suppose  to  have  been  small,  compared  with 
the  catholic  Christians ;  though  there  is  some  ground  for  be- 
lieving, that  its  number  was  nearly  or  quite  equal  to  that  of 
all  the  other  Gnostics. 

The  fact  that  the  different  sects  of  Gnostics  insensibly 
melted  away  at  so  early  a  period,  and  the  further  fact  that 
their  doctrines  had  so  little  influence  upon  the  belief  of  sub- 
sequent Christians,  likewise  afford  proof  that  they  formed  only 
a  small  part  of  the  whole  Christian  body.  The  same  infer- 
ence may  be  drawn  from  the  manner  in  which  they  were 
treated  by  the  early  fathers,  who  manifest  no  alarm  at  their 
growth,  nor  fear  of  their  prevalence,  but  who  write  concern- 
ing them  in  a  tone  of  undoubting  superiority.  It  may  be 
further  observed,  that  the  early  fathers,  in  the  passages  in 
which  they  speak  of  the  multitude  of  Christians  who  had 
spread  through  the  world,  neither  except  nor  include  the 
Gnostics,  but  appear  not  to  have  had  them  in  mind,  though 
they  certainly  did  not  consider  them  as  belonging  to  the 
Church,  or,  in  other  words,  to  the  great  body  of  proper 
Christians.  In  the  passages,  likewise,  in  which  they  speak  of 
the  unity  of  faith  in  the  Church,  their  modes  of  expression 
imply  that  the  Gnostics  bore  but  a  small  proportion  to  the 
catliolic  Christians. 

"The  Church,"  says  Irenaeus,  *' though  scattered  over  the 
whole  world,  carefully  preserves  the  iaith  derived  from  the  apostles 
and  their  disciples,  as  if  it  were  but  a  single  family  in  one  house.  .  .  . 
It  speaks  as  with  one  mouth.  For,  various  as  are  the  languages 
of  the  world,   the  essential  doctrine  is  one  and  the  same.     No 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  223 

different  belief  has  been  held  or  taught  by  the  churches  founded  in 
Germany,  nor  by  those  in  Spain,  nor  in  Gaul,  nor  in  the  East,  nor 
in  Egypt,  nor  in  Libya,  nor  by  those  founded  in  the  middle  of  the 
world  [Judaea].  But  as  the  sun,  the  creature  of  God,  in  every 
part  of  the  world  is  one  and  the  same ;  so  the  preaching  of  the 
truth  shines  everywhere,  and  enlightens  all  who  are  desirous  of 
knowing  the  truth."  * 

Language  such  as  this  could  hardly  have  been  used,  if  there 
had  been  a  large  body  of  professed  Christians  who  rejected 
the  doctrines  of  the  Church. 

Here,  then,  we  conclude  what  may  be  called  the  external 
history  of  the  Gnostics.  In  the  next  chapter,  we  shall  speak 
of  their  moral  characteristics,  in  connection  with  their  imper- 
fect knowledge  of  Christianity. 

♦  Cont.  Haeres.,  lib.  i.  c.  10,  §  2,  p.  49:  conf.  §  1,  p.  48. 


CHAPTER    lY. 

ON    THE    MORALS    OF    THE     GNOSTICS,    AND     THEIR.    IMPER- 
FECT   CONCEPTIONS    OF    CHRISTIANITY. 

When,  in  the  second  century,  after  an  interval  of  obscurity 
following  the  times  of  the  apostles,  the  catholic  Christians 
appear  distinctly  in  view,  we  find  them  distinguished,  as  a 
body,  by  their  abhorrence  of  the  vices  of  the  heathen  world, 
by  a  high  and  stern  morality,  by  the  strictness  of  the  disci- 
pline which  respective  churches  exercised  over  their  members, 
by  a  general  tendency  to  the  virtues  of  the  ascetic  and  the 
martyr,  and  by  Christian  faith,  the  conviction  of  the  reality 
of  the  unseen  and  the  future  controlling  the  sense  of  present 
pleasures  and  sufferings.  In  this  character  the  Marcionites 
appear  to  have  shared;  but  what  was  the  state  of  morals 
among  the  theosophic  Gnostics  is  a  question  less  easy  to 
decide. 

Clement  of  Alexandria  divides  the  heretics  into  two 
classes.  "  They  either  teach  men,"  he  says,  "  to  lead  a  loose 
life,  or,  with  overstrained  severity,  they  preach  continence 
tlirough  impiety  and  enmity  ;  "  *  —  that  is,  as  Clement  meant, 
enmity  towards  the  Creator.  In  his  view,  the  latter  class  in- 
cluded the  Marcionites,  and  some  ascetics  among  the  other 
Gnostics,  to  all  of  whom  the  name  oi  Encratites-\  was  given. 


•  Stromat.,  iii.  §  5,  p  529,  seqq.:  conf.  §§  3,  4,  p.  515,  seqq. 

t  From  the  Greek  iyKpoTT/g,  "  practising  self-coniinand,"  "  continent. 


GENUINENESS  OP  THE  GOSPELS.        225 

They  taught  that  it  was  not  right  to  marry,  and  bring  children 
into  this  imperfect  and  unhappy  world;  and,  regarding  the 
body  as  evil,  considered  the  pleasures  of  the  senses  as  sinful. 
In  consequence,  Clement  ascribes  their  principles  to  enmity 
to  the  Creator.  "Through  opposition  to  the  Creator,"  he 
says,  "  Marcion  rejected  the  use  of  the  things  of  this  world."* 
A  similar  account  of  the  self-denial  of  the  Encratites,  and  of 
its  cause,  is  given  by  Irenseus.  t  To  the  strict  morals  of  the 
Marcionites,  Tertullian  bears  indirect  but  decisive  testimony. 
He  is  speaking  of  their  doctrine,  that  while  the  Creator  was 
just^  and  inflicted  punishment,  the  Supreme  God,  their  God, 
was  good,  and  not  to  be  feared.  "  Come  now,"  he  says,  with 
his  usual  force  of  expression,  though  the  sentiment  is  incorrect, 
"you  who  do  not  fear  God,  because  he  is  good,  why  do  you 
not  indulge  in  every  lust,  the  chief  gratification  of  life,  as  far 
as  I  know,  to  all  who  do  not  fear  God  ?  Why  not  frequent 
the  customary  pleasures  of  the  raging  circus,  the  savage  arena, 
and  the  lascivious  theatre  ?  Why,  in  times  of  persecution,  do 
you  not  at  once  take  the  proffered  censer,|  and  save  your 
life  by  denying  your  faith  ?  '  Far  be  it  from  me  ! '  you  say  ; 
'  far  be  it  from  me  ! '  You  fear  to  offend,  then,  and  thus  you 
prove  that  you  fear  Him  who  forbids  the  offence."  §  Con- 
formably to  this,  Origen  speaks  of  the  good  morals  of  some  of 
the  heretics,  as  one  means  of  drawing  men  over  to  their  doc- 
trines ;  and  he  states  hypothetically  the  case  of  such  a  heretic, 
"  either  a  Marcionite,"  he  says,  "  or  a  disciple  of  Valentinus, 
or  of  any  other  sect."  || 

But  generally,  the  accounts  of  the  morals  of  the  theosophic 
Gnostics  are  very  unfavorable.     According  to  the  statements 


*  Stromat.,  iii,  §  4,  p.  522. 
t  Cont.  Hgeres.,  lib.  i.  c.  28,  §  1,  pp.  106,  107. 

X  The  censer  was  proffered,  that  the  person  accused  of  Christianity  might 
offer  incense  to  some  idol,  and  thus  refute  the  charge. 
§  Advers.  Marcion.,  lib.  i.  c.  27,  pp.  379,  380. 
il  Homil.  in  Ezechiel,  vii.  §  3;  0pp.  iii.  382. 
16 


226  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

of  TreiifBiis,  the  Valentinians,  affirming  themselves  to  be  dis- 
tinguished from  others  by  their  spiritual  nature,  which  made 
a  part  of  their  original  conformation,  maintained  that  it  was 
impossible  they  should  not  be  saved,  whatever  they  miglit 
do.  They  regarded  the  spiritual  principle  identified  with 
them  as  incapable  of  pollution ;  and  compared  themselves  to 
gold,  which  receives  no  injury  from  defilement.  Hence  the 
perfect  among  them,  he  affirms,  practised  without  fear  all  that 
is  forbidden.  They  ate  idol-sacrifices,  and  celebrated  the 
heathen  festivals ;  some  of  them  did  not  abstain  from  the 
shows  of  gladiators  and  the  fights  with  wild  beasts,  "  spec- 
tacles," says  Irenaeus,  with  the  new  feeling  of  a  Christian  con- 
cerning them,  "  hated  by  God  and  men ; "  and  others  were 
grossly  licentious  in  their  lives,  seducing  and  corrupting 
women,  by  teaching  them  their  principles.* 

The  erroneous  doctrine,  mentioned  by  Irenasus,  concerning 
their  spiritual  nature,  appears,  in  its  essential  features,  to 
have  been  common  to  the  Valentinians  generally,  and  also 
to  the  other  theosophic  Gnostics,t  but  not  the  moral  offences 
with  which  he  charges  them  as  its  consequence,  as  may 
appear  in  part  from  the  limiting  words, "  some"  and  "  others," 
and  "the  perfect  among  them"  (used  perhaps  ironically), 
which  he  introduces  into  his  account.  Of  the  Valentinians 
and  other  theosophic  Gnostics,  it  is  to  be  recollected,  on  the 
one  hand,  that  they  were  Christians,  and,  on  the  other,  that 
they  were  not  rational  Christians.  As  a  sect,  they  enter- 
tained very  erroneous  views  of  our  religion,  and  probably 
many  of  them  had  been  very  ill  informed  concerning  it. 
Repelled,  as  they  were,  from  the  great  body  of  believers, 
there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  there  were  among  them 
those  whom  the  power  of  Christianity  was  not  sufficient  to 


•  Cont.  Heeres.,  lib.  i.  c.  6,  p.  28,  seqq. 

t  In  addition  to  what  has  been  quoted  from  Iren^us,  see  Clement.  AL 
Btroraat.,  ii.  §  3,  pp.  433,  434,  §  20,  p.  489;  v.  §  1,  p.  645. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         227 

withdraw  from  the  evil  influences  of  the  pagan  world,  by 
which  they  were  surrounded ;  whose  ties  to  it  were  far  from 
being  altogether  broken  ;  who  still  remained  entangled  among 
its  corruptions.  AVith  some  softening,  perhaps,  of  such 
charges  as  those  of  Irenreus,  we  have  no  ground  for  ques- 
tioning their  applicability  to  a  portion  of  the  theoso})hic 
Gnostics ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  we  have  evidence,  to  which 
we  will  now  advert,  that  they  were  true  only  of  a  portion. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  discoursing  on  self-restraint,  quotes, 
almost  as  an  authority,  a  passage  from  Valentinus.  It  begins 
thus :  "  There  is  One  who  is  good,  who  has  openly  manifested 
himself  through  his  Son  ;  and  througli  him  alone  can  the  heart 
be  made  pure,  every  evil  spirit  being  driven  out  of  it."  Val- 
entinus compares  the  heart  polluted  by  the  indwelling  of  evil 
spirits  to  a  caravansary  injured  and  defiled  by  the  strangers 
who  lodge  in  it.  "  But,"  he  says,  "  when  the  only  good 
Father  takes  charge  of  it,  it  is  made  holy  and  enlightened ; 
and  thus  he  who  has  such  a  heart  is  blessed^  for  he  shall  see 
God" *  Tatian,  who  was  distinguished  for  his  asceticism,  was, 
says  Clement,  of  the  school  of  Valentinus-t  Heracleon,  a 
distinguished  Valentinian,  is  quoted  by  Clement,  as  teaching 
that  the  profession  of  faith  required  by  Christ  of  his  follow- 
ers is  not  that  made  in  words  only,  but  that  "  made  by  works 
answering  to  faith  in  him."  t  And  Ptolemy,  who  remodelled 
the  system  of  his  master,  taught  that  the  fasting  enjoined  by 
our  Saviour  was  not  bodily  abstinence,  but  abstinence  from 
all  sin.  § 

Basilides  and  his  followers  formed  another  branch  of  the 


*  Stromat.,  ii.  §  20,  pp  488,489.  Valentinus,  it  will  be  perceived,  alludes 
to  the  words  of  Christ,  "  Blessed  are  the  pure  in  heart ;  for  they  shall  see 
God."  The  whole  passage,  as  Clement  remarks,  does  not  seem  easily  recon- 
cilable with  the  doctrine,  that  the  spiritual  are  so  by  natural  constitution,  and 
are,  in  consequence,  assured  of  salvation. 

t  Ibid.,  iii.  §  13,  p.  553.  t  Ibid.,  iv.  §  9,  p.  595. 

§  Epist.  ad  Floram ;  apud  Irenaei  0pp.  p.  360. 


228  EVIDENCES    OF   THE 

theosophic  Gnostics,  nearly  allied  to  the  Valentinians ;  and 
Irenajus  brings  similar  charges  of  immorality  against  them  * 
But  Clement  begins  the  third  book  of  his  Stromata  with 
quoting  two  passages,  one  from  Basilides,  and  the  other  from 
his  son  Isidore ;  and  then  proceeds  to  say,  "  I  have  adduced 
these  words  for  the  reproof  of  those  Basilidians  who  live  not 
as  they  ought,  as  if  through  their  perfectness  they  were  free 
to  sin,  or  as  if,  though  they  should  now  sin,  they  would  be 
saved  by  nature  through  their  innate  election ;  for  the  found- 
ers of  their  doctrines  give  them  no  license  so  to  act."  f  Thus 
Clement,  writing  with  less  prejudice,  corrects,  and  at  the 
same  time  confirms  in  part,  the  accounts  of  Irenaius. 

But  against  certain  sects  and  individuals  Clement  himself 
brings  the  gravest  charges  of  immorality,  so  deep-seated  as 
thoroughly  to  corrupt  their  principles.  "I  have  fallen  in 
with  a  sect,"  he  says,  "  whose  leader  affirmed  that  we  must 
fight  with  pleasure  by  the  use  of  pleasure  ;  this  genuine 
Gnostic,  for  he  called  himself  a  Gnostic,  thus  deserting  to 
pleasure  under  the  pretence  of  warring  against  it."  $  He 
then  mentions  others,  who  perverted  (one  can  hardly  think 
seriously)  the  ascetic  maxim,  "  that  the  body  must  be  abused," 
and  employed  it  to  justify  themselves  in  the  most  licentious 
indulgences.§  In  another  place,  he  speaks  of  an  individual 
named  Prodicus,  and  of  his  followers.  "  They  affirm,"  says 
Clement,  "  that  by  nature  they  are  sons  of  the  First  God  ; 
that,  using  the  privilege  of  their  birth  and  freedom,  they  live 
as  they  choose,  and  that  they  choose  to  live  in  pleasure. 
They  think  that  they  are  under  no  control,  as  lords  of  the 
Sabbath,  and  born  superior  to  every  other  race,  royal  chil- 
dren ;  for  a  king,  they  say,  is  circumscribed  by  no  law."  || 

*  Cont.  Hsercs.,  lib.  i.  c.  24,  §  5,  p.  102,  c.  28,  §  2,  p.  107. 
t  Stromat.,  iii.  §  1,  p.  510.  J  Ibid.,  ii.  §  20,  p.  490. 

§  Ibid.,  ii.  §  20,  pp.  490,  491:  conf.  iil.  §  4,  pp.  522,  523. 
II  Ibid.,  iii.  §  4,  p.  525. 


GENUINENESS   OF    THE   GOSPELS.  229 

They  taught  that  there  was  no  obligation  to  pray.*  Speak- 
ing of  sectaries  of  a  like  kind,  Clement  also  says,  that  there 
were  "  some  who  called  intercourse  with  common  women  a 
mystical  communion  ;  doing  outrage  to  the  name."  —  "  They 
consecrate  such  licentiousness,"  he  says,  "and  think  that  it 
conducts  them  to  the  kingdom  of  God."t  The  charge  of 
teaching  that  gross  licentiousness  was  a  necessary  means 
of  liberating  the  soul  from  its  entanglement  in  matter, 
and  consequently  was  a  religious  duty,  is  likewise  brought 
by  Irenseus  against  the  Carpocratians,  a  sect  to  be  hereafter 
mentioned. 

Clement  also  speaks  of  individuals,  called  Antitactce 
(Opponents),  whom  he  describes  as  maintaining  that  "the 
God  of  all  is  our  Father  by  nature,  .4ind  that  all  which  he 
made  is  good  ;  but  that  one  of  those  produced  by  him  sowed 
tares,  and  gave  birth  to  evils,  in  which  he  involved  us,  oppos- 
ing us  to  the  Father ;  whence,  to  avenge  the  Father,  we, 
they  say,  oppose  him,  doing  contrary  to  his  will.  Since, 
therefore,  he  said,  '  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery,'  we 
commit  adultery  to  break  his  command."  %  The  giver  of  the 
law,  it  seems,  was,  in  their  view,  the  Devil.  Ptolemy,  the 
Valentinian,  likewise  speaks  of  some  who  referred  the  origin 
of  the  Jewish  Law  to  the  Devil ;  but  he  says  that  they  also 
ascribed  to  him  the  creation  of  the  world  ;  §  which  does  not 
appear  to  have  been  true  of  the  persons  mentioned  by  Clem 
ent.  These,  it  would  seem,  pretended  to  be  in  some  sort 
Christians  ;  for  Clement,  in  reasoning  against  them,  im- 
plies that  they  affirmed,  that  "  the  Saviour  only  was  to  be 
obeyed  ; "  ||  the  comparison  evidently  being  between  him  and 
the  giver  of  the  Law. 

There  is  a  passage  of  the  later  Platonist,  Porphyry,  de- 


•  Stromat,  vii.  §  7,  p.  854.  f  Ibid.,  iii.  §  4,  pp.  523,  524. 

X  Ibid.,  iii.  §  4,  pp.  526,  527.  §  Epist.  ad  Floram,  pp.  357,  358. 

II  Stromat.,  iii.  §  4  p.  527. 


230  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

scriptive  of  individuals  resembling  some  of  those  spoken  of 
by  Clement,  in  their  pretensions  and  in  their  licentious 
principles.  It  is  in  his  work  in  which  he  defends  the  Pytha- 
gorean doctrine  of  abstinence  from  animal  food.  "The 
opinion,"  he  says,  "  that  one  yielding  to  the  affections  of  the 
senses  can  employ  his  powers  about  the  objects  of  intellect, 
has  been  the  ruin  of  many  of  the  barbarians;"  by  which  term 
he  means  those  whose  religion  and  philosophy  were  not 
Grecian.  "  They  have  arrogantly,"  he  continues,  "  indulged 
in  every  form  of  pleasure,  saying  that  he  who  is  conversant 
with  other  things  may  grant  such  license  to  the  irrational 
part  of  his  nature."  They  compared  themselves  to  the  ocean, 
which  is  undefiled  by  the  pollutions  that  rivers  are  con- 
tinually carrying  into  it.  "All  things,"  they  said,  "must  be 
subjected  to  us.  A  small  body  of  water  is  easily  made  turbid 
by  any  impurity ;  and  so  it  is  in  regard  to  food  (the  particular 
subject  of  discussion)  with  men  of  little  minds.  But,  where 
there  is  a  depth  of  power,  men  receive  all  things,  and  are 
defiled  by  nothing."  — "  Thus  deceiving  themselves,"  says 
Porphyry,  "  they  act  conformably  to  their  error ;  and,  instead 
of  enjoying  liberty,  throw  themselves  into  a  gulf  of  misery 
in  which  they  perish."* 

The  individuals  spoken  of  by  Porphyry  were,  it  appears, 
ready  to  admit  that  men  of  little  minds  were  corrupted  by 
sensual  indulgences.     So  the  theosophic  Gnostics,  according 


*  De  Abstinentia  ab  Animalibus  necandis,  lib.  i.  §  42.  It  may  be  ob- 
served, that  this  work  is  addressed  to  an  acquaintance,  who  had  fallen  awa}' 
from  the  Pythagorean  doctrine,  and  that,  in  appealing  to  him,  Porphyry  has 
the  following  allusion  to  Christians:  "  I  would  not  intimate,  that  your  nature 
is  inferior  to  that  of  some  ignorant  persons,  who,  embracing  rules  of  conduct 
contrary  to  those  of  their  former  life,  submit  to  be  cut  limb  from  limb 
(ro/iuf  T£  fiopluv  VTzo/iivovai)  ]  and  abhor,  more  than  human  flesh,  certain 
kinds  of  animal  food  in  which  before  they  indulged  "  (lib.  i.  §  2).  He  refers, 
I  suppose,  to  the  abstinence  of  Christians  from  the  flesh  of  idol-sacrifices, 
and  the  other  kinds  of  food  prohibited  by  the  council  at  Jerusalem  (Acts  xv. 
26,  29). 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        231 

to  Irenoeus,  affirmed,  that,  while  they  were  altogether  secure 
of  salvation  as  being  naturally  spiritual,  common  Cliristians, 
who  were  not  so,  must  attain  salvation  throusrh  jrood  works 
and  a  simple  faith,  —  simple  faith,  in  contradistinction  to  that 
perfect  knowledge  of  spiritual  things  which  they  themselves 
possessed.* 

There  can  be  no  doubt,  I  think,  that  the  doctrine,  held 
by  the  theosophic  Gnostics,  concerning  the  spiritual  and  in- 
corruptible nature  of  a  favored  portion  of  mankind,  was 
abused  by  certain  individuals,  and  connected  with  the  gross- 
est immorality,  as  is  represented  by  Clement  and  Porphyry. 
But  I  do  not  conceive  that  the  individuals  of  whom  they 
speak  were  Christian  heretics.  The  supposition  of  any  seri- 
ous or  intelligent  belief  of  the  divine  mission  of  Christ  is 
wholly  inconsistent  with  the  extreme  licentiousness  of  their 
principles  and  practice.  So  far  as  they  were  at  all  connected 
with  Christianity,  we  may  suppose  that  they  had  learnt  some- 
thing concerning  it,  perhaps  through  the  medium  of  the  Gnos- 
tics ;  and  that  such  was  the  character  of  their  minds,  that  they 
were  very  ready  to  break  through  their  old  restraints,  to 
treat  with  contempt  the  Pagan  mythology,  to  regard  them- 
selves as  specially  illuminated,  and  to  form  their  crude 
conceptions  into  principles  that  might  sanction  their  licentious- 
ness, as  the  privilege  of  their  new  liberty  and  their  spiritual 
nature.  Sects  and  individuals  of  this  class  may  be  denom- 
inated pseudo-  Christian  ;  a  name  to  be  understood  as  distin- 
guishing them,  on  the  one  hand,  from  the  Christian  heretics, 
and,  on  the  other,  from  those  heathen  Gnostics  on  whom  the 
influence  of  Christianity,  if  any,  was  more  remote.  Each  of 
the  three  classes,  however,  probably  passed  into  that  nearest 
to  it  by  insensible  gradations.  Of  the  pseudo-Christian  sects 
I  shall  speak  in  the  next  chapter;  and  will  only  here  ob- 
serve, that,  taking  the  name  heathen,  not  in  the  distinguishing 


*  Cont.  Haeres.,  lib.  i.  c.  6,  §  2,  p.  29,  §  4,  p.  31. 


232  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

sense  just  mentioned,  but  in  the  extent  of  its  meaning,  these 
pseudo-Christians  may  properly  be  called  Heathens. 

As  regards  the  theosophic  Gnostics,  we  have  seen  that  a 
portion  of  them  were  ascetics,  as  well  as  the  Marcionites; 
and  that  immorality  was  far  from  being  taught  or  counte- 
nanced by  the  more  distinguished  of  their  number.  But 
many  of  them,  a  portion  so  large  as,  in  the  minds  of  some 
writers,  to  give,  whether  fairly  or  not,  a  character  to  the 
whole,  were  but  partially  separated  from  the  heathen  world. 
They  joined  in  its  idol-sacrifices,  and  shared  in  its  licentious- 
ness. The  charges  brought  against  them  by  IreniEus  are 
confirmed,  as  we  have  seen,  by  Clement,  as  regards  one  of 
the  two  classes  into  which  he  divides  the  heretics.  They 
correspond  to  the  representations  of  TertuUian.  And,  at 
a  still  earlier  period,  Justin  Martyr,  in  his  Dialogue  with 
Trypho,  introduces  Trypho  as  saying,  that  "  he  had  learnt 
that  many  of  those  who  said  that  they  professed  Jesus,  and 
who  were  called  Christians,  ate  idol-sacrifices,"  that  is,  joined 
in  the  rites  of  Pagan  worship,  "  saying  that  they  were  nothing 
hurt  by  it."  *  Tiiey  justified  themselves  in  their  practices  by 
doctrines  common  to  the  theosophic  Gnostics,  which  admitted 
of  an  easy  perversion  to  the  purpose.  It  is  probable,  how- 
ever, that  some  of  them  laid  little  or  no  stress  on  the  incor- 
ruptibility of  their  spiritual  nature ;  but  merely  said,  as 
Irenaius  states  in  one  passage,  that  "  God  did  not  care  much 
for  those  things."  t 

But  any  approach  to  idolatry  is  so  contrary  to  the  funda- 
mental doctrine  of  our  religion,  and  the  grosser  sensual  vices 
stand  in  such  manifest  opposition  to  the  spirituality  required 
by  it,  and  to  its  express  prohibitions,  that  they  would  seem  to 
be  among  the  last  offences  that  one  believing  himself  a  Chris- 


*  Dial,  cum  Trj'ph.,  p.  207. 

t  .  .  .  .  "uon  valde  lia;c  curare  dicentes  Deum."  —  Lib.  i.  c.  28,  §  2, 
p.  107. 


GENUINENESS   OP   THE   GOSPELS.  233 

tian  might  imagine  to  be  countenanced  or  permitted  by 
Christianity.  The  case  of  those  Gnostics  we  have  been  con- 
sidering presents,  therefore,  a  remarkable  phenomenon.  But 
it  is  one  which  may  be  explained,  and  its  existence,  conse- 
quently, be  confirmed,  by  considerations  drawn  from  the  ante- 
cedent history  of  Christianit}^,  and  the  state  of  the  ancient 
world.     To  these  we  will  now  attend. 

From  the  New  Testament  we  learn  how  imperfectly  some 
of  the  first  Gentile  converts  comprehended  the  undivided 
worship  to  be  paid  to  the  Supreme  Being,  and  the  purity  of 
life  which  Christianity  requires.  They,  like  the  looser  Gnos- 
tics of  later  times,  were  guilty  of  licentiousness  and  of  joining 
in  idolatrous  rites.  "  Some,"  says  St.  Paul  to  the  Corin- 
thians, "  being  accustomed  to  the  idol,  eat  even  till  now  as  of 
an  idol-sacrifice ; "  *  and  he  thus  exhorts  them,  referring  to 
the  ancient  Israelites :  "  Be  not  ye  idolaters,  as  were  some 
of  them,  as  is  written,  The  'people  sat  down  to  eat  and  drink, 
and  rose  up  to  sport.  Nor  let  us  commit  fornication,  as  did 
some  of  them,  of  whom  three  and  twenty  thousand  fell  in  one 
day."  t  The  latter  exhortation  seems  to  have  been  thus  inti- 
mately connected  with  the  former,  because  debauchery  was  so 
common  a  part,  or  an  accompaniment,  of  the  religious  festi- 
vals and  rites  of  the  Heathens.  As  regards  idol-sacrifices,  it 
appears  that  some  of  the  Corinthians  thought,  that,  as  "  an 
idol  was  nothing  in  the  world,"  they  might,  therefore,  "  sit  at 
meat  in  an  idol's  temple ; "  that  is,  that  they  might  join  their 
former  heathen  associates  in  being  present  at  a  sacrifice  there 
ofiered,  and  at  the  entertainment  following  it,  when  those 
portions  of  the  victim  which  belonged  to  the  offerer  were 
eaten,  —  that  they  might,  as  St.  Paul  expresses  it,  "have 

*  1  Cor.  viii.  7.  I  read  avvTjdeia,  not  (as  in  the  Received  Text)  avveuMjaet.. 
But  which  is  the  true  reading  is  doubtful,  and,  to  the  present  purpose,  unim- 
portant. 

t  1  Cor.  X.  7.  8. 


234  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

communion  with  demons,"  and  "  partake  both  of  the  Lord's 
table  and  the  table  of  demons."  * 

The  early  history  of  Christianity  affords  another  remarkable 
indication  of  such  errors  as  have  been  mentioned  existing 
among  its  converts.  When  it  was  determined  by  the  apos- 
tles and  elders  at  Jerusalem  to  admit  the  Gentile  converts  as 
Christians  to  their  communion,  without  their  being  previously 
circumcised,  —  that  is,  without  their  first  professing  themselves 
proselytes  to  Judaism,  —  they  were  specially  enjoined  to  abstain 
from  idol-sacrifices  and  from  fornication.  "It  has  seemed 
good  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  to  us,  to  impose  upon  you  no 
greater  burden  than  these  necessary  things  :  .To  abstain  from 
idol-sacrifices,  and  from  the  eating  of  blood  and  of  things 
strangled,  and  from  fornication."  f  Nothing  at  first  view 
may  strike  a  modern  reader  more  strangely  than  that  the 
eating  of  idol-sacrifices  and  unchastity  should  be  coupled  in 
the  same  prohibition  with  actions  morally  indifferent  in  their 
nature.  But  I  have  referred  to  this  decree  (as  it  has  been 
called),  because  it  affords  much  light  on  the  state  of  the  early 
Christian  community,  in  reference  to  the  present  subject. 
We  will  attend  to  both  parts  of  it,  as  their  connection  re- 
quires, though  only  that  relating  to  idolatry  and  licentious- 
ness is  to  our  immediate  purpose. 

To  explain  it,  then,  two  considerations  are  to  be  attended 
to,  —  the  prejudices  of  the  Jewish,  and  the  erroneous  senti- 
ments and  habits  of  the  Gentile,  converts.  The  result  of 
the  deliberations  of  the  council  was  "after  much  discus- 
sion," J  in  which  those  who  opposed  the  admission  of  the 
Gentile  converts  into  the  Church,  unless  they  first  became 
proselytes  to  Judaism  and  assumed  the  observance  of  the 
whole  Jewish  Law,  had,  we  may  presume,  particularly 
urged   against   them  the   commission   of  the   acts   specially 


*  See  1  Cor.  viii.  4,  10;  x.  20,  21.  f  Acts  xv.  28,  29.       . 

X  Acts  XV.  7. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        235 

prohibited.  Why  the  eating  of  blood  and  of  things  stran- 
gled should  have  given  strong  offence  to  those  who  were 
zealous  for  the  Law  may  appear  from  the  fact,  that  the 
command  to  abstain  from  them  is  expressly  extended  in  the 
Law  to  strangers  sojourning  among  the  Israelites.*  It  is 
also  represented  in  Genesis  as  a  universal  precept,  given  by 
God  to  Noah  and  his  descendants  ;  f  and  may,  therefore,  have 
been  regarded,  even  by  many  of  those  Jews  who  were  most 
liberally  disposed,  as  binding  upon  all  men.  It  is  next  to  be 
remarked,  that  many  of  the  Gentile  converts,  as  it  appears, 
had  no  correct  moral  feeling  of  the  offence,  either  of  joining  a 
feast  in  honor  of  an  idol,  or  of  unchastity.  At  such  feasts 
they  had  been  accustomed  to  be  present ;  and  seeing  that  they 
knew,  as  the  Corinthians  boasted,  "  that  an  idol  was  nothing 
in  the  world,"  t  they  saw  no  harm  to  themselves  or  others  in 
continuing  to  enjoy  the  gratification.  As  for  simple  unchas- 
tity, it  had  not  been  considered  by  the  generality  of  Heathens 
as  a  matter  of  reproach,  except  in  the  female  sex.  Amid  the 
prevalence  of  more  odious  vices,  and  the  general  disrespect 
for  woman,  it  was  lightly  thought  of  by  the  wisest  and  best 
among  them,  and  was  either  permitted  by  their  moralists  and 
philosophers,  or  scarcely  came  within  their  view  as  any  thing 
to  be  reprehended.  Thus,  while,  on  the  one  hand,  the  strong 
conscientious  prejudices  of  probably  far  the  greater  part  of 
the  Jewish  believers  required  the  prohibition  of  eating  "  flesh 
with  the  life  thereof,  which  is  its  blood  ; "  §  so,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  imperfect  notions  of  religion  and  morality  which 

*  Lev.  xvii.  10-13.  t  Gen.  ix.  4. 

X  St.  Paul  (1  Cor.  viii.  1,  seqq.)  refers  to  such  a  boast  ironically,  with 
reference  to  the  misapplication  which  the  Corinthians  had  made  of  their 
knowledge :  "  Concerning  idol-sacrifices  we  know,  —  for  we  all  have  knowl- 
edge; knowledge  puffs  up,  but  love  edifies;  he  who  thinks  he  knows  some- 
thing knows  nothing  yet  as  it  ought  to  be  known ;  but  he  who  loves  God  has 
been  taught  by  him,  —  concerning  the  eating  of  idol-sacrifices,  then,  we 
know  that  an  idol  is  nothing  in  the  world,  and  there  is  uo  other  God  but 
one."  §  Gen.  ix.  4 


236  EVIDENCES  OF   THE 

the  Gentile  converts  brought  with  them  made  it  necessary  to 
insist  particularly  on  the  graver  offences  specified,  and  ex- 
plicitly to  announce  that  they  were  forbidden  by  Christianity. 
But  the  same  influences  that  corrupted  the  imperfect  faith  of 
some  of  the  earliest  Gentile  converts  continued  to  operate  in 
the  second  century  on  the  imperfect  faith  of  many  of  the 
theosophic  Gnostics  ;  nor  is  there,  as  some  have  suggested, 
any  reason  to  regard  those  charges  as  unjust  or  improbable, 
when  made  against  a  considerable  portion  of  their  number, 
which  we  know  to  be  true  as  respects  a  portion  of  the  pro- 
fessed converts  of  the  apostolic  age. 

But  the  influence  of  heathen  principles  and  practice  was 
not  the  only  source  of  moral  error.  Even  Christian  truths, 
viewed  in  relation  to  the  circumstances  of  the  times,  were 
liable  to  be  grossly  misrepresented  and  abused  ;  and  some- 
times the  strong  words  in  which  they  are  expressed  by  St. 
Paul  were  so  perverted  as  to  make  them  contradict  the  whole 
tenor  of  his  doctrine.  "  Where  the  spirit  of  the  Lord  is, 
there  is  liberty,"*  said  the  apostle,  in  one  of  the  noblest 
declarations  ever  uttered.  "  The  creation  itself  will  be  deliv- 
ered from  the  bondage  of  corruption  into  the  glorious  liberty 
of  the  sons  of  God."  t  —  "  Stand  fast  in  the  liberty  with  which 
Christ  has  made  you  free."  t  The  liberty  of  which  St.  Paul 
speaks  was  that  enlargement  of  mind  produced  by  Christian- 
ity, through  new  conceptions  of  duty  and  of  God;  liberty 
from  the  narrow  and  bitter  prejudices  of  the  Jews,  and  from 
the  burdensome  ritual  of  their  Law,  which,  according  to  a 
remarkable  expression  of  St.  Peter,  was  "  a  yoke  that  neither 
they  nor  their  fathers  had  been  able  to  bear  ;"§  and  liberty, 
on  the  other  hand,  from  heathen  superstition,  its  sanctified 
follies,  its  idle  terrors,  its  abominable  rites,  and  its  slavery  to 


*  2  Cor.  iii.  ir.  t  Rom.  viii.  21. 

t  Gal.  V.  1.  §  Acts  XV.  10. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        237 

gods  whose  characters  were  only  a  source  of  moral  pollution  ; 
that  system  from  which  Lucretius  thought  atheism  a  happy 
deliverance :  — 

"  Humana  ante  oculos  foede  quom  vita  jaceret 
In  terris  oppressa  gravi  sub  religione." 

The  liberty  of  which  the  apostle  spoke  was  freedom  from 
all  those  hard  and  degrading  observances  and  supposititious 
duties,  "  that  servitude  to  the  weak  and  beggarly  principles 
of  the  world,"  *  through  which  men  have  sought  the  favor  of 
the  being  or  beings  whom  they  have  worshipped,  in  the  neg- 
lect of  mora]  goodness.  It  was  freedom  from  "  that  spirit  of 
bondage  and  fear  "  with  which  the  Jews  regarded  God,  and 
the  reception  of  the  Christian  spirit,  which  "bears  witness  to 
our  spirits  that  we  are  children  of  God."  t  In  a  word,  it  was 
freedom  from  superstition  and  sin. 

This  state  of  mind,  this  liberty,  was  to  be  attained  through 
faith,  by  becoming  a  Christian  ;  that  is,  through  the  hearty  and 
practical  reception  of  Christian  truth.  The  favor  of  God  was 
not,  as  the  unbelieving  Jews  maintained,  to  be  secured  by 
"  the  works  of  the  Law ; "  that  is,  by  the  observance  of  the 
Jewish  Law,  according  to  their  notions  of  what  constituted 
its  observance,  —  namely,  a  strict  regard  to  all  its  peculiar 
requirements  and  religious  rites.  Such  observance  was  so 
far  from  being  the  duty  of  a  Christian,  as  some  of  the  Jewish 
believers  maintained,  that  the  new  convert  would  wholly 
mi«itake  the  character  of  his  religion,  if  he  suffered  himself  to 
be  persuaded  that  it  was  an  essential  means  of  obtaining 
God's  favor.J  It  would  be  seeking  "  for  completion  in  the 
flesh,  after  having  begun  in  the  spirit."  §  —  "I  tell  you,"  says 
the  apostle,  "  ye  who  seek  for  righteousness  by  the  Law  have 
done  with  Christ ;  ye  have  fallen  away  from  the  dispensation 


*  Gal.  iv.  3,  9.  t  Rom.  viii.  14,  15. 

}  See  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.  §  Gal.  ili.  3, 


238  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

of  favor."  *  To  ha\e  fiiith,  to  be  a  Christian,  was  all  that 
was  required ;  and  ''  the  works  of  the  Law,"  in  the  sense  in 
which  that  term  was  used  by  the  unbelieving  Jews  and 
bigoted  Jewish  converts,  were  not  required. 

But,  further  than  this,  the  blessings  which  believers  enjoyed 
were  not  conferred  in  consequence  of  any  previous  merit 
of  tlieirs,  of  ani/  works  which  they  had  performed,  nor  of  any 
claim  upon  God,  such  as  the  Jews  believed  themselves  to 
have  established  by  keeping  their  Law.  They  were  his  free 
gift  to  a  world  lying  in  sin.  They  were  offered  equally  to 
the  tax-gatherer  and  to  the  harlot,  and  to  him  who  was,  or 
fancied  himself,  righteous.  It  was  not  the  goodness  of  men 
which  had  entitled  them  to  this  new  dispensation  of  favor :  it 
was  their  sinfulness  and  misery  which  had  called  for  this 
interposition  of  mercy ;  "  and  now  to  him,"  says  the  apostle, 
"  performing  no  works  "  (that  is,  to  him  who  had  performed 
no  works),  "but  having  faith  in  God,  who  receives  the  sinner 
to  his  favor,  his  faith  is  accounted  righteousness."  t  His  sins 
were  forgiven  upon  his  becoming  a  Christian ;  for  the  first 
duty  of  a  Christian  was  reformation,  and  reformation  is  the 
only  ground  of  the  forgiveness  of  sin. 

Such  were  the  truths  maintained  by  St.  Paul.  But  the 
bold,  brief,  unlimited,  unguarded  language,  in  which  they 
were  occasionally  expressed  by  him,  admitted  of  being  misin- 
terpreted in  a  manner  contradictory  to  the  whole  spirit  of  his 
teaching,  and  to  the  fundamental  requirements  of  Christianity. 
AVe  perceive  that  he  sometimes  apprehended  that  his  doctrine 
might  he  so  perverted.  "  Brethren,"  he  says  to  the  Galatians, 
"ye  have  been  called  to  liberty,  only  use  not  your  liberty 
as  a  pretence  for  the  flesh ; "  that  is,  as  a  pretence  for  the 
indulgence  of  sinful  appetites  and  passions,  t    St.  Peter,  like- 


*  Gal.  V.  4.  t  Rom.  iv.  5. 

X  (ial.  V.  13 :  comp.  ver.  19-21,  where  the  apostle  enumerates  the  work* 
•f  the  flesh. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         239 

wise,  exhorts  that  Christians  should  conduct  themselves  as 
"  free,  and  not  using  their  freedom  as  a  cloak  for  wickedness, 
but  as  servants  of  God."  *  After  strongly  stating  that  the 
pardon  of  sin  was  tendered  to  all  by  Cliristianity,  St.  Paul 
asks,  with  reference  probably  both  to  the  misrepresentations 
of  the  unbelieving  Jews,  and  the  loose  notions  of  some  Chris- 
tian converts,  "  What  then  shall  we  say  ?  Shall  we  con- 
tinue in  sin  that  the  favor  may  superabound  ? "  t  and 
earnestly  rejects  this  false  inference.  How  St.  Paul's  doc- 
trine concerning  "  works  "  was  abused,  we  learn  from  the 
Epistle  ascribed  to  St.  James,  t  It  is  evident  that  there  were 
those  who  thought  that  to  become  a  Christian,  in  a  loose 
sense  of  the  word,  was  all  that  was  required ;  who  had  false 
notions  of  Christian  liberty  and  of  the  pardon  of  sin  ;  and  who 
comprehended  the  moral  duties  among  the  works  from  which 
their  faith  absolved  them. 

Great  changes  in  the  religious  opinions  and  sentiments  of 
mea  can  hardly  be  effected  without  producing  also  extrava- 
gances of  speculation,  moral  irregularities,  and  scepticism. 
The  belief  of  the  larger  part  of  men  has  rested,  and  must 
ever  rest,  on  authority.  They  are  but  sharers  in  the  common 
belief  of  the  community  or  sect  to  which  they  belong ; 
though  this  belief,  and  especially  its  practical  effects,  may  be 
greatly  modified  in  different  individuals  by  personal  qualities, 
good  or  bad.  The  knowledge  of  the  wisest  man  is  but  the 
result  of  the  action  of  his  mind  on  the  accumulated  wis- 
dom and  judgments  of  those  who  have  preceded  him, 
and  on  what  he  believes,  from  testimony,  to  have  been  the 
experience  of  the  past.  There  are  no  independent  thinkers, 
in  the  absolute  sense  of  the  words.  Independent  and  judi- 
cious thinkers,  in  the  more  popular  sense,  are  rare.  In  our 
intellectual  as  well  as  our  moral  nature,  we  are  parts  of  each 

*  1  Pet.  ii.  16.  t  Rom.  vi.  1.  |  James  ii.  14,  seqq. 


240  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

Other,  and  cannot,  without  a  severe  struggle,  release  ourselves 
from  the  traditionary  opinions  of  those  with  whom  we  are 
connected.  One  generation  inculcates  its  faith  on  another; 
and  this  is  received  and  incorporated  into  the  mind  at  a 
period  too  early  for  examination  or  doubt,  and  is  thus  perpet- 
uated from  age  to  age.  When,  therefore,  the  authority  of 
the  past  gives  way,  the  minds  of  many  are  liable  to  be  greatly 
unsettled.  To  some,  the  rejection  of  errors  that  have  been 
long  maintained  seems  equivalent  to  the  denial  of  the  best 
established  truths  ;  for  the  grounds  of  their  belief  in  the  one 
and  the  other  are  the  same,  both  having  been  admitted  by 
them  on  authority.*  They  either  obstinately  defend  all  they 
have  been  taught,  or,  through  a  tendency  to  scepticism,  impa- 
tience of  doubt,  and  an  inability  to  estimate  moral  evidence, 
and  consequently  to  discriminate  what  may  be  proved  true, 
and  what  ftilse,  reject  the  whole  together.  Others,  again, 
join  at  once  in  the  new  movement ;  and,  feeling  themselves 
released  from  the  ordinary  restraints  of  speculation,  confident, 
like  the  Corinthians,  that  they  have  knowledge,  and  elated 
by  their  victory  over  what  wiser  men  have  reverenced,  pro- 

*  However  obvious  is  the  general  truth  of  the  remarks  above  made,  it 
may  be  thought  by  some  that  they  are  not  applicable  to  the  revolution  of 
opinion  produced  by  Christianity;  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  the  folly  of  the 
pagan  religions  was  such,  that  they  could  have  had  no  strong  hold  on  the 
belief  0^  men  through  the  influence  of  authority.  But,  setting  aside  all  other 
evidence,  the  proper  fanaticism  displayed  by  the  Pagans  in  their  contest 
with  Christianity  would  alone  be  sufficient  to  disprove  the  error. 

Some  time  after  writing  what  is  in  the  text,  I  was  struck  by  accidentally 
meeting  with  the  following  passage  of  Lactantius,  which  I  had  read  long 
before,  but  had  forgotten.  It  speaks  of  the  state  of  things  when  Christianity 
had  been  preaclied  for  two  centuries  and  a  half  After  remarking  on  the 
pagan  religions,  Lactantius  says:  "These  are  the  religions  which,  handed 
down  to  them  from  their  ancestors,  they  persevere  m  most  obstinately  main- 
taining and  defending.  Nor  do  they  consider  of  what  character  they  are; 
but  are  confident  that  they  are  good  and  true,  because  they  have  been  trans- 
mitted from  the  ancients.  So  great  is  the  authority  of  antiquity,  that  to 
inquire  into  it  is  pronounced  impiety.  It  is  trusted  to  everywhere  with  the 
eame  contidence  as  is  felt  in  ascertained  truth"  (Institut,  lib.  ii.  §  6). 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         241 

mulgate,  often  in  a  new  dialect,  their  crude  and  inconsequent 
doctrines,  perhaps  as  the  anticipated  wisdom  of  a  coming 
age. 

In  the  breaking-up  of  old  opinions,  the  true  and  only- 
appeal  is  to  reason.  But  the  process  is  dilUcult,  and  there 
are  not  many  capable  of  carrying  it  through.  When  we 
personify  abstract  reason,  we  must  acknowledge  that  her 
decisions  are  final.  But  in  a  large  portion  of  individual 
minds  the  actual  power  of  reasoning  is  small ;  or  rather,  if 
we  take  into  view  the  whole  human  race,  as  spread  over  the 
earth,  we  shall  perceive  that  there  is  a  very  large  majority  in 
whom  the  power  of  determining  by  themselves  any  contro- 
versy concerning  the  higher  objects  of  thought  cannot  be  said 
to  exist.  In  revolutions  of  religious  opinion,  therefore,  it  has 
been  common  to  substitute  for  reason  an  imaginary  faculty, 
—  an  intuitive  perception  of  the  highest  truths.  !lMen  claim 
to  know  that  their  opinions  are  true,  on  the  ground  that  they 
directly  perceive  them  to  be  true  without  the  intervention  of 
reasoning.  This  claim  to  inward  illumination,  to  an  imme- 
diate revelation  to  individual  men,  has  commonly,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  Gnostics,  been  asserted  by  particular  sects  as 
their  peculiar  privilege;  but  in  our  times  the  privilege 
has  been  extended,  with  magnificent  absurdity,  to  the  whole 
human  race. 

One  other  fact  may  be  remarked.  In  all  reforms,  it  is 
common  for  men  to  discern  the  truth  imperfectly,  under  one 
aspect  alone ;  to  mistake  general  for  unlimited  propositions ; 
and  to  affirm  what  is  true  in  a  certain  sense,  and  with  certain 
modifications,  as  universally  true.  They  seize,  perhaps,  on 
some  doctrine  recommended  to  them  by  its  being  opposite  to 
an  old  error ;  and  without  defining  it  in  their  own  minds,  or 
reconciling  it  with  admitted  truths,  or  viewing  it  in  its  extent 
and  relations,  insist  on  its  absolute,  unqualified  reception. 

But,  in  the  interregnum  and  partial  anarchy  that  take 
place  between  the  overthrow  of  one  system  and  the  establish- 

16 


242  EVIDENCES  OF   THE 

ment  of  another,  moral  disorders  commonly  break  out.  The 
passions  throw  off  their  restraints,  as  well  as  the  imderstand- 
in(r.  Men's  notions  of  duty  change  with  their  religious  be- 
lief; and  they  regard  as  indifferent  actions  which  they  before 
thouglit  obligatory  or  criminal,  or  they  even  ascribe  to  the 
same  actions  an  opposite  moral  character.  The  limits  of 
ri«rht  and  wrong  are  for  a  time  obscured;  and  there  are 
those  who  will  take  advantage  of  this  uncertainty  to  trans- 
gress. The  reception  of  the  new  system  constitutes  a 
distinction  which,  in  the  minds  of  some,  supersedes  the 
necessity  and  merit  of  common  virtues.  There  is  a  wild 
growth  of  error ;  and  all  religious  errors,  being  mistakes  con- 
cerning the  nature,  relations,  and  duties  of  man,  fend  to  moral 
evil.  Thus  all  great  and  apparently  sudden  revolutions  of 
religious  opinion,  which  are  commonly,  in  some  sense,  re- 
forms, as  being  a  re-action  against  abuses  and  errors,  are 
accompanied  in  their  turn  by  new  errors  and  excesses. 

It  was,  I  conceive,  in  contemplation  of  the  demoralizing 
effects  commonly  attending  sudden  changes  of  religious  opin- 
ion, however  beneficial  in  their  final  or  immediate  result,  that 
our  Saviour,  at  the  commencement  of  his  ministry,  thus 
addressed  his  hearers :  "  Think  not  that  I  have  come  to 
annul  the  Law  or  the  Prophets :  I  have  not  come  to  annul, 
but  to  perfect.  For  I  tell  you  in  truth,  not  till  heaven  and 
earth  pass  away  shall  the  smallest  letter  or  stroke  pass  away 
from  the  Law;  no,  not  till  all  things  are  ended."*  His 
meaning  was,  —  Think  not  that  I  have  come  to  set  aside 
those  religious  and  moral  principles,  the  true  Law  of  God, 
which  your  faith  inculcates.  I  have  come  to  explain  them 
more  fully,  and  to  enforce  them  more  solemnly.  They  re- 
main for  ever  unchangeable.  And  thus  he  goes  on  to  say: 
"  Whoever  shall  break  one  of  these  least  commandments 
[that  is,  one  of  the  least  of  those  which  he  was  about  to  give] 


*  Matt.  V.  17, 18. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  243 

shall  be  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  .  .  .  For,  unless 
your  goodness  exceed  that  of  the  teachers  of  the  Law  and  the 
Pharisees,  ye  shall  not  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  * 

It  was  among  the  Gentile  converts  that  the  Gnostics 
appeared ;  and  we  shall  perceive,  that  even  under  the  teach- 
ing of  St.  Paul,  and  those  associated  with  him,  the  notions 
of  many  of  the  Gentile  converts  concerning  our  religion 
must  have  been  imperfect  and  erroneous,  when  we  consider 
what  opportunities  they  enjoyed  for  attaining  a  knowledge 
of  it,  for  correcting  their  former  prejudices,  and  for  deter- 
mining its  bearing  upon  the  mass  of  their  old  conceptions 
and  opinions.  They  had  not  the  help  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. With  the  exception  of  his  own  Epistles,  the  oral 
teaching  of  St.  Paul  and  his  associates  was  probably  the  main 
source  of  instruction  to  a  majority  of  his  converts.  But 
the  apostle,  earnest  to  spread  as  widely  as  possible  a  knowl- 
edge of  Christ,  and  driven  hither  and  thither  by  persecution, 
often  rested  but  a  short  time  in  the  places  which  he  visited. 
Many,  we  may  believe,  after  witnessing  his  miraculous 
power,  and  hearing  from  him  the  fundamental  facts  and 
doctrines  of  Christianity,  professed  themselves  converts, 
though  they  had  only  a  brief  opportunity  of  listening  to  his 
expositions  of  truth  and  duty.  Some  doubtless  embraced 
the  religion  under  a  temporary  excitement  of  feeling,  without 
a  just  notion  of  its  character,  or  a  correct  sense  of  the  obli- 
gations it  imposed.  We  cannot  question,  that,  by  the  apostle 
as  well  as  by  our  Saviour,  the  seed  was  often  scattered  where 
it  sprung  up  to  be  choked  by  weeds.  He  would  encourage 
every  motion  toward  good.  He  would  not  repel  any  one 
who  professed  a  desire  to  turn  from  sin  to  righteousness, 
however  crude  and  unformed  were  his  conceptions  of  the 
new  religion.     He  would  receive  as  a  disciple  whoever  re- 


*  Matt.  V.  19,  20. 


244  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

garded  it  with  fiivor.  He  would  act  in  the  spirit  of  the 
words  of  his  Master,  —  "  Forbid  him  not ;  for  he  that  is  not 
against  you  is  for  you." 

Such  being  the  state  of  things,  great  errors,  schisms,  oppos- 
ing parties,  and  moral  irregularities,  existed,  in  consequence, 
among  the  earliest  Gentile  converts.  They  are  often  referred 
to  in  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.  Into  what  gross  misconcep- 
tions of  Christianity  individuals  who  professed  themselves 
converts  to  it  might  fall,  may  appear  from  the  fact,  that  some 
among  the  Corinthians  denied  its  fundamental  doctrine  of  a 
future  life.  "  How  say  some  among  you,"  asks  the  apostle, 
"  that  there  is  no  resurrection  of  the  dead  ? "  *  The  ten- 
dency to  these  evils  was  aggravated  by  a  spirit  of  opposition 
to  St.  Paul.  This  originated  among  the  bigoted  Jews, 
zealous  for  the  observance  of  the  Levitical  Law  by  the  Gen- 
tile converts ;  and,  there  can  be  little  doubt,  spread  from 
them  to  others.  In  his  second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians, 
there  is  much  referring  to  opponents  who  spoke  of  him  dis- 
respectfully and  reproachfully.  Thus,  under  the  operation 
of  the  various  circumstances  that  we  have'  adverted  to,  indi- 
viduals were  led  to  form  systems  for  themselves,  different 
from  the  religion  taught  by  the  apostles ;  and  a  way  was 
opened  for  speculations  as  extravagant  as  those  of  the  Gnos- 
tics, for  moral  principles  as  loose  as  were  those  of  some  of 
their  number,  and  for  the  existence  of  sects  which,  deriving 
their  origin  from  the  preaching  of  Christianity,  had  yet  no 
title  to  the  Christian  name. 

But  we  must  also  recollect,  that  a  knowledge  of  Chris- 
tianity was  spread  by  others  than  the  apostles,  and  their 
immediate  associates,  and  those  whose  teaching  they  sanc- 
tioned. Of  such  as  were  or  thought  themselves  converts, 
many  would  be  zealous  to  communicate  the  new  doctrine  to 

♦  1  Cor.  XV.  12. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        245 

others.  From  them  it  would  often  pass,  more  or  less  muti- 
lated by  their  ignorance,  or  adulterated  by  their  prejudices, 
or  blended  with  their  former  errors.  Of  such  teachers  from 
amoncr  the  Jewish  converts,  who  insisted  on  the  observance 
of  the  Levitical  Law,  we  have  abundant  evidence  in  St.  Paul's 
Epistles.  Beside  them,  we  cannot  doubt  that  .there  were, 
from  the  body  of  Gentile  Christians,  others  with  very  differ- 
ent conceptions.  It  is  easy  to  conceive  what  crude  and  false 
notions  of  our  religion  may  thus  have  been  spread  among  its 
remoter  and  less-informed  professors,  and  how  far  it  may 
have  been  divested  of  that  solemn  authority  with  which  it 
impressed  the  mind  of  an  intelligent  believer. 

Great  errors  might  be  consistent  with  honest  zeal  in  those 
who  thus  communicated  their  imperfect  conceptions  of  Chris- 
tianity. But  there  also  appeared  among  Christians  pretended 
teachers  of  our  religion,  to  whom  honest  zeal  cannot  be 
ascribed.  They  are  spoken  of  by  St.  Paul,  in  writing  to  the 
Corinthians,  as  "  false  apostles,  fraudulent  workmen,  trans- 
forming themselves  into  apostles  of  Christ,"  but  in  truth 
"  ministers  of  Satan."  *  They  are  described  by  him  as  "  the 
many  who  adulterate,  for  the  sake  of  gain,  the  doctrine  of 
God."  t  The  heathen  sophists  taught  for  money  ;  and, 
undoubtedly,  often  sought  to  distinguish  themselves,  for  the 
sake  of  procuring  hearers,  by  novel,  paradoxical,  and  licen- 
tious opinions.  When  Christianity  opened  a  wholly  new 
field  for  speculation,  producing  a  strong  excitement  and 
action  of  mind  wherever  preached,  men  of  a  similar  character 
would  be  ready  to  take  advantage  of  this  state  of  things. 
Thus  we  find  that  among  the  Corinthians  there  soon  appeared 
false  teachers,  whose  object  was  to  procure  a  maintenance, 
and  who  defrauded  and  oppressed  their  disciples.  It  is  in 
reference  to  them,  or  to  some  one  of  their  number,  that  St. 


*  2  Cor.  xi.  13,  15.  t  Ibid.,  ii.  17. 


246  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

Paul  says,  "  Ye  bear  it  patiently,  if  a  man  make  slaves  of 
you,  if  he  devour  you,  if  he  take  your  property,  if  he  treat 
you  insolently,  if  he  strike  you  on  the  face.  I  speak  it  with 
shame  ;  for  it  is  as  if  we  ourselves  suffered."  *  Some,  prob-. 
ably  most  or  all,  of  these  men,  it  appears,  were  Jews  ;  for, 
speaking  of  his  opponents,  he  says,  "  Are  they  Hebrews  ? 
So  am  I ; "  t  and  these  Jews  might  have  learned  from  their 
own  Rabbis  to  receive  fees  from  their  disciples.  With  the 
conduct  of  such  false  teachers  St.  Paul  contrasts  his  own  in 
taking  nothing  from  the  Corinthians  ;  partly  because  he 
would  "  aiford  no  pretence  to  those  who  wished  for  a  pre- 
tence." $  And,  what  is  remarkable,  the  very  circumstance 
of  his  preaching  gratuitously  was  made  use  of  by  his  oppo- 
nents to  depreciate  his  character ;  and  he  found  himself 
called  upon  to  defend  his  conduct  in  this  respect.  "  Have  I," 
he  says  indignantly,  "humbling  myself  that  you  might  be 
exalted,  done  wrong  in  preaching  to  you  the  gospel  of  God 
gratuitously  ?  "  §  The  Corinthians  were  so  familiar  with  the 
custom  of  paying  the  highest  fees  to  those  professed  teachers 
of  wisdom  who  were  in  the  most  repute,  that  some  of  them 
were  disposed  to  regard  as  of  little  value  a  teacher  who  did 
not  demand  money  for  his  instructions. 

He  alludes  to  the  subject  again,  late  in  life,  in  his  Epistle 
to  Titus.  "There  are  many,"  he  says,  "especially  among 
those  of  the  circumcision,  who  are  disorderly,  vain  talkers, 
deluding  men's  minds,  whose  mouths  must  be  stopped,  who 
subvert  whole  families,  teaching  what  should  not  be  taught 
for  the  sake  of  shameful  gain."  1|  And  he  also  refers  to  them 
in  his  first  Epistle  to  Timothy,  written  about  the  same  time 
with  that  to  Titus.  "  If  any  one,"  he  says,  "  teach  another 
doctrine,  and  hold  not  to  the  sound  words  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  to  the  doctrine  of  piety,  he  is  puffed  up,  under- 


*  2  Cor.  xi.  20,  21.  f  Ibid.,  xi.  22.  J  Ibid.,  xi.  12. 

§  Ibid.,  xi.  7.  II  Chap  i.  10,  11. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        247 

Standing  nothing,  but  having  a  diseased  craving  for  discus- 
sions and  strifes  of  words,  from  which  proceed  ill-will, 
quarrelling,  reviling,  malicious  surmises,  perverse  disputa- 
tions of  men  of  corrupt  minds,  destitute  of  the  truth,  thinking 
to  make  a  gain  of  piety.  P^rom  such  keep  away.  Piety, 
indeed,  with  contentment,  is  a  great  gain.  We  have  brought 
nothing  into  the  world  ;  it  is  clear  that  we  can  carry  nothing 
out  of  it:  having,  then,  food  and  clothing,  with  these  we 
shall  be  satisfied.  But  they,  whose  purpose  it  is  to  be  rich  * 
foil  into  temptation,  and  a  snare,  and  many  senseless  and 
pernicious  lusts,  which  plunge  men  into  destruction  and  ruin. 
'The  root  of  all  these  evils  t  is  the  love  of  money,  through 
their  craving  after  which  some  have  strayed  from  the  truth, 
and  have  pierced  themselves  through  with  many  pangs."  t 

This  class  of  false  teachers  existed  among  the  Gnostics ; 
and  probably  most  of  their  professors  of  wisdom,  like  the 
heathen  sophists,  gave  instruction  only  to  those  disciples  who 
were  able  to  purchase  it.  Speaking  of  some  of  their  doc- 
trines, Iren^us  says  ironically,  "  It  seems  to  me  reasonable 
that  they  should  not  be  willing  to  teach  them  openly  to  all, 
but  only  to  those  who  are  able  to  pay  a  great  price  for  such 
mysteries ;  for  these  doctrines  are  not  like  those  concerning 
which  our  Lord  said,  '  Freely  ye  have  received,  freely  give  ; ' 
but  are  remote  from  common  apprehension,  marvellous  and 
profound  mysteries,  to  be  attained  with  much  toil  by  the  lovers 
of  falsehood.  Who,  indeed,  would  not  spend  his  whole  sub- 
stance to  learn  them  ?  "  §  Such  teachers  existing,  it  can  be 
no  matter  of  surprise,  that  some  of  them  taught  systems  as 
unlike   Christianity  as  those  of  any   of  the   Gnostic  sects, 


*  Referring,  I  conceive,  to  those  before  spoken  of  as  "  men  of  corrupt 
minds." 

t  Not  "the  root  of  all  evil,"  as  in  the  common  version.  The  original  is, 
*Pl^a  yap  ttuvtuv  tuv  kukuv. 

t  Chap.  vi.  3-10. 

§  Lib.  i.  c.  4,  §  3,  p.  20 :  conf.  lib.  iv.  c.  26,  §  2,  p.  262. 


248  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

and  that  others  merely  borrowed  certain  conceptions  from  our 
religion,  without  pretending  to  embrace  it. 

Had  it,  indeed,  been  other  than  a  revelation  from  God,  ex- 
pressing its  divine  origin  in  its  whole  history  and  character ; 
had  it  been  only  a  new  form  of  barbaric  philosophy,  that  had 
sprung  up  among  the  Jews  in  Galilee,  —  then,  instead  of  bear 
ino-  down  throudi  the  heathen  world,  a  broad  and  ever 
widening  stream,  it  would  have  been  choked  by  corruptions 
and  errors,  through  which  it  could  not  force  its  way;  it 
would  have  been  wasted  and  lost,  like  those  rivers  of  Africa 
and  the  East  that  disappear  in  deserts  of  sand.  One  incom- 
municable attribute  alone,  its  divine  authority,  gave  it  per- 
manence. Whatever  might  be  the  mistakes  of  its  disciples 
concerning  it,  yet  in  its  own  nature  it  allowed  of  no  amalga- 
mation with  human  opinions,  as  sharing  its  paramount  claims. 
It  admitted  of  no  change  or  addition.  This  opposed  an  in- 
superable barrier  to  all  innovations,  which  did  not  at  least 
claim,  however  falsely,  to'be  original  doctrines  of  Christianity. 
It  controlled  the  operation  of  those  causes  of  error  which 
have  been  pointed  out.  It  is  the  redeeming  principle,  which 
we  may  hope  will  yet  restore  the  religion  of  Christians  to  the 
native  purity  of  Christianity.  Had  it  not  possessed  this 
character  ;  had  it  been  merely  a  new  system  of  Jewish  philos- 
ophy, having  a  fabulous  origin,  a  system  of  assertions  with- 
out proof,  —  for  such  Christianity  is,  if  it  be  not  a  divine 
revelation,  —  a  multitude  of  sects  would  have  appeared  among 
its  Gentile  followers,  not  hovering,  like  the  Gnostics,  on  the 
outskirts  of  our  faith,  but  seizing  on  the  whole  ground,  form- 
ing theories  of  equal  authority  with  the  original  doctrine,  the 
records  of  which  they  could  but  imperfectly  understand ;  and 
at  the  present  day,  instead  of  seeing  Christianity  the  professed 
religion  of  the  civilized  world,  we  should  know  as  little  of 
disciples  of  Jesus,  existing  as  a  distinct  body,  as  we  know 
of  disciples  of  Socrates. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  249 

It  has  appeared,  that,  with  the  first  propagation  of  our 
religion  among  the  Gentiles,  causes  of  error  were  operating 
to  produce  resistance  to  the  authority  of  St.  Paul  and  the 
other  apostles,  schisms,  moral  irregularities,  false  doctrines, 
and  apostasy.  It  was  with  a  foresight  of  this  state  of  things 
that  Jesus  said,  "  He  who  perseveres  to  the  end  will  be 
saved ; "  and,  at  the  same  time,  predicted  that  many  would 
fall  away,  —  "  They  will  deliver  up  one  another,  and  hate 
one  another ;  and  many  false  teachers  will  arise,  and  deceive 
many  ;  and  iniquity  will  so  abound,  that  the  love  of  many 
will  grow  cold."*  Notwithstanding  the  vast  power  which 
our  religion  displayed  in  changing  the  characters  of  men,  such 
disorders  and  evils  were  to  attend  its  progress.  "  But  know 
this,"  says  St.  Paul  to  Timothy,  in  his  last  Epistle,  when  an- 
ticipating his  own  martyrdom,  "  that  hereafter  there  will  be 
evil  times ;  for  those  men  [a  class  of  men  of  whom  he  had 
before  spoken]  will  be  selfish,  avaricious,  boastful,  haughty, 
given  to  evil-speaking,  disobedient  to  parents,  ungrateful, 
unholy,  without  natural  affection,  without  faith,  slanderers, 
of  unrestrained  passions,  without  humanity,  without  love  for 
what  is  good,  treacherous,  violent,  puffed  up  with  pride,  lovers 
of  pleasure  rather  than  lovers  of  God,  having  a  show  of  piety, 
but  renouncing  its  power.  From  such  turn  away.  Of  their 
number  are  those  who  creep  into  houses,  and  make  captive 
weak  women,  laden  with  sins,  carried  away  by  divers  evil 
desires,  always  learning  and  never  able  to  gain  a  knowledge 
of  the  truth.  But  as  James  and  Jambres  contended  against 
Moses,  so  they  contend  against  the  truth ;  men  whose  minds 
are  corrupt,  and  whose  faith  is  unsound.  But  they  will  not 
proceed  far ;  for  their  folly  will  be  manifest  to  all,  as  was  that 
of  James  and  Jambres."  f 

Who  "  those  men  "  were,  of  whom  St.  Paul  thus  speaks, 
appears  from  what  precedes  in  the  Epistle.     "  Put  men  in 


*  Matt.  xxiv.  10-12.  f  2  Tim.  iii.  1-9. 


250  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

mind  of  these  things,"  he  says  (that  is,  of  certain  fundamental 
truths  of  Christianity,  which  he  had  just  expressed),  "  adjur- 
ing them  before  the  Lord  not  to  engage  in  idle  disputes, 
which  profit  nothing,  but  subvert  the  hearers.  .  .  .  Avoid  those 
profane  babblings ;  for  these  men  will  go  on  to  greater  im- 
piety, and  their  doctrine  will  eat  into  them  like  a  gangrene. 
Of  their  number  are  Hymenseus  and  Philetus,  who  have  erred 
from  the  truth,  saying  that  the  resurrection  has  already  taken 
place,  and  who  are  subverting  the  faith  of  some.  ...  In  a 
great  house,  there  are  not  only  vessels  of  gold  and  silver,  but 
also  of  wood  and  clay,  and  some  for  honorable  and  others  for 
mean  uses.  If,  then,  one  keep  himself  clear  from  those  things, 
he  shall  be  a  vessel  for  honor.  .  .  .  Avoid  those  -foolish  and 
unlearned  discussions,  knowing  that  they  produce  strife."* 
The  great  body  of  catholic  Christians  was  continually  throw- 
ing off  these  disorders,  and  separating  itself  from  them.  But 
there  can  be  no  reason  to  doubt  the  existence  of  such  dis- 
orders among  the  heretical  as  well  as  pseudo-Christian  sects 
of  the  second  and  subsequent  centuries. 

There  is  no  historical  evidence  which  justifies  us  in  believ- 
ing, that  what  assumes  to  be  a  second  Epistle  of  Peter,  and 
that  which  has  been  ascribed  to  the  apostle  Jude,  were  the 
works  of  those  authors ;  and  the  character  and  contents  of 
the  writings  are  unfavorable  to  the  supposition.  The  ancient 
Christians  are  not  responsible  for  any  error  concerning  their 
authorship ;  for  it  does  not  appear  that  they  were  generally 
considered  as  genuine  during  the  first  three  centuries.  It 
seems  to  me  most  probable,  that  they  were  composed  in  the 
first  half  of  the  second  century,  under  the  names  of  those 
apostles ;  and  that  the  writer  of  each  assumed  a  character  not 
hi?  own,  rather  by  way  of  rhetorical  artifice,  than  with  inten- 
tional fraud.     In  both,  individuals  of  depraved  morals  are 

*  2  Tim.  ii.  14-23. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         251 

described  as  existing  among  Christians,  in  langiinge  wliich,  if 
not  that  of  the  apostles,  we  may  consider  as  dechimatory  and 
exaggerated,  but  cannot  looli  upon  as  without  foundation.  It 
appears  that  those  spoken  of  were  not  yet  wholly  separated 
from  the  communion  of  catholic  Christians.  "They  are 
hidden  rocks  in  your  love-feasts,"*  it  is  said.  But  they 
are  spoken  of  as  those  "  who  are  making  a  separation  ;  "  f  and 
the  feelings  expressed  toward  them  in  these  Epistles  are  such 
as  must  have  produced  their  severance  from  the  catholic  body. 
They  were  not  only  immoral  in  their  lives,  but  "  false  teachers, 
secretly  bringing  in  destructive  heresies ;  "  $  and  the  language 
used  may  suggest  the  inference,  that  these  were  Gnostic 
heresies.  Thus  it  is  said,  that  they  "denied  the  Sovereign 
Lord  who  bought  them,  and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  "  §  mean- 
ing, we  may  suppose,  that  they  denied  that  the  Creator  was 
the  Supreme  God,  and  held  opinions  concerning  Christ  so 
contradictory  to  the  truth,  as  to  amount  to  a  denial  of  his 
real  character.  To  the  pretension  of  the  Gnostics,  that  they 
alone  were  spiritual,  and  possessed  of  true  knowledge,  the 
writers  may  be  supposed  to  refer  indignantly  and  contemptu- 
ously, when  they  describe  those  of  whom  they  speak,  as 
"animal,  not  having  the  spirit,"  ||  as  "speaking  evil  of  what 
they  understand  not,"  and  as  "  brute  beasts,  governed  by 
instinct,  made  to  be  taken  and  destroy ed."1[  —  "  They  promised 
men  freedom,"  it  is  said,  "  while  they  themselves  were  slaves 
of  corruption  ;  "  **  language  corresponding  to  the  representa- 
tions of  the  early  fathers  concerning  the  pretensions  and 
character  of  many  among  the  Gnostics.  It  may  be  added, 
that  they  taught  for  money.     "  Through  covetousness,"  it  is 


*  Jude  12 :  comp.  2  Pet.  ii.  13,  where  ayimatg  seems  probably  the  tnie 
reading. 

t  Jude  19,  OL  uTTokopi^nvTeg.  The  word  knvTovg,  which  follows  in  the 
Received  Text,  does  not  appear  to  be  genuine. 

}  2  Pet.  ii.  1.  §  2  Pet.  ii.  1.   Jude  4.  ||  Jude  19. 

IF  2  Pet.  ii.  12.  Jude  10.  **  2  Pet.  ii.  19. 


252  EVIDENCES    OF   THE 

said,  "  they  will  make  a  gain  of  you  by  fraudulent  dis- 
courses ; "  *  and  they  are  compared  to  Balaam,  who  "  loved 
the  wages  of  unrighteousness,"  t  having  been  tempted  by  the 
bribes  of  Balak.  "Woe  for  them,"  says  the  author  of 
the  Epistle  ascribed  to  Jude ;  "  for  they  have  walked  in  the 
way  of  Cain,  and  given  themselves  up  to  deceive,  like  Balaam, 
for  pay,  and  brought  destruction  on  themselves  through 
rebellion,  like  Korah."  $  It  is  not,  perhaps,  improbable, 
that  these  Epistles  were  written  about  the  time  that  Gnos- 
ticism was  first  making  its  appearance,  and  before  it  had  yet 
acquired  any  reputable  or  able  leaders. 

The  date  of  the  Apocalypse  is  uncertain ;  but  it  is,  I  think, 
to  be  referred  either  to  the  latter  part  of  the  first,  or  the 
earlier  part  of  the  second  century.  In  the  addresses  to 
the  seven  churches  of  Asia,  we  find  mention  of  the  same 
vices,  as  existing  among  professed  Christians,  which  we  have 
before  remarked ;  and,  in  speaking  of  them,  Balaam  is  intro- 
duced under  a  point  of  view  different  from  that  in  which  he 
appears  in  the  E{)istles  ascribed  to  Peter  and  Jude.  Thus, 
in  the  address  to  the  church  at  Pergamus,  it  is  said,  "  But  I 
have  a  few  things  against  thee,  for  thou  hast  those  who  follow 
the  teaching  of  Balaam,  who  instructed  Balak  how  to  cause 
the  Israelites  to  offend,  by  eating  idol-sacrifices  and  com- 
mitting fornication ;  so  hast  thou,  too,  those  who  thus  follow 
the  teaching  of  the  Nicolaitans,"  §  —  that  is,  thou,  too,  hast 
those  who  eat  idol-sacrifices  and  commit  fornication.  The 
Nicolaitans  are  also  mentioned  once  before  ;  ||  and  this  appel- 
lation appears  to  be  used  as  equivalent  to  "followers  of 
Balaam,"  the  significance  of  "  Balaam "  in  Hebrew,  and 
"  Nicolaus  "  in  Greek,  being  the  same.  The  name  Nicolaitans 
was  subsequently  apj^lied  to  Gnostics  who  led  licentious  lives, 


*  2  Pet.  ii.  3.  t  2  Pet.  ii.  16.  J  Jude  11. 

§  Kev.  ii.  14,  15.  II  Rev.  ii.  6. 


GENUINENESS    OF   THE   GOSPELS.  253 

till  at  last  it  came  to  be  considered  as  the  name  of  a  sect  * 
This  sect  was  then  supposed  to  derive  its  origin  from  Nicolaiis  f 
(Nicholas),  one  of  the  seven  deacons  appointed  by  the 
apostles,  t  The  fable  —  for  such  it  is  to  be  considered  —  is 
rejected  by  Clement  of  Alexandria,  who  gives  an  account  of 
Nicolaiis,  perhaps  eqitilly  unfounded,  in  which  he  is  rei)re- 
sented  as  an  ascetic.  §  The  Nicolaitans  are  the  sect  before 
referred  to,  ||  as,  according  to  Clement,  perverting  the  maxim, 
that  "the  body  must  be  abused,"  which  he  ascribes  to 
Nicolaiis. 

It  appears,  then,  that,  from  the  times  of  the  apostles,  im- 
moral doctrines  and  practices  had  existed  among  professed 
Christians,  and  that,  due  allowance  being  made  for  the 
language  of  controversial  enmity,  and  for  charges  brought 
against  Christian  Gnostics,  which,  so  far  as  they  were  true, 
were  true  only  of  sects  not  Christian,  there  is  still  no  reason 
to  doubt  th  it  the  princlj^les  of  a  portion  of  the  Gnostics  did 
not  secure  them  from  the  common  vices  of  the  pagan  world ; 
and  that  there  were  those  among  them  who  perverted  their 
doctrines  to  defend  themselves  in  criminal  irregularities. 
The  character  of  the  great  body  of  Christians,  founded  on  the 
requirements  of  our  religion ;  the  supervision  exercised  by 
their  respective  churches  over  the  morals  of  individual  mem- 
bers ;  their  rejection  from  their  number  of  those  whose  lives 
or  whose  principles  were  essentially  unchristian,  —  these 
causes,  in  connection  with  the  persecution  which  they  suffered 
from  without,  were  continually  operating  to  produce  a  separa- 
tion between  them  and  such  individuals  as  have  been  de- 
scribed. But  there  was  nothing  to  prevent  such  individuals 
from  forming,  or  from  joining,  a  looser  class  of  heretics,  and 

*  IrenjKus,  lib.  i.  c  26,  §  3,  p.  105:  conf.  lib.  iii.  c.  11,  §  1,  p.  188. 

t  Ibid.  t  Acts  vi.  5. 

§  Stromal.,  ii.  §  20,  pp.  490,  491;  iii.  §  4,  pp.  522,  623. 

11  See  p.  228. 


254  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

announcing  themselves  as  Gnostics,  or,  in  other  words,  as 
peculiarly  enlightened. 

Many  of  the  first  converts  to  Christianity  must,  as  we  have 
seen,  have  had  but  very  imperfect  information  concerning  it. 
Former  prejudices  still  retained  a  strong  hold  on  their  minds. 
In  the  effervescence  of  the  times,  fal^  teachers  soon  arose. 
The  doctrine  of  the  apostles  was  resisted  on  the  one  hand,  and 
perverted  on  the  other.  Such  being  the  state  of  things  in 
the  first  century,  the  way  was  prepared  for  the  existence, 
in  the  second  century,  of  doctrines  as  remote  from  Christianity 
as  those  of  the  Gnostics.  They  were  the  fruit  of  errors  that 
had  sprung  up  when  the  Gospel  was  planted,  and  had  accom- 
panied its  growth. 

During  the  second  century,  all  those  distinctly  recognized 
as  heretics  among  the  Gentile  converts  were,  or  were  repre- 
sented to  be.  Gnostics.  As  has  been  before  observed,  it  was 
natural,  that  an  ill-informed  convert,  possessed  with  the  com- 
mon prejudices  of  the  Gentiles,  should  adopt  the  Gnostic 
doctrine  concerning  the  Old  Testament  and  the  God  of  the 
Jews.  It  was  equally  natural,  that  one  who  had  become 
separated  from  the  great  body  of  Christians  by  an  immoral 
life,  if  he  did  not  renounce  his  religion  altogether,  should  join 
a  body  of  heretics  whose  extraordinary  pretensions  at  once 
afforded  a  cover  for  his  vices  and  a  gratification  to  his  vanity. 
He  would  pass  over  to  the  looser  class  of  theosophic  Gnostics. 
Thus  it  may  be  conceived,  that,  in  the  second  century,  those 
irregularities  and  vices  settled  down  among  them,  which,  in  the 
first  century,  appear  diffused  through  the  body  of  Christians. 

We  have  had  occasion  to  bring  into  view  the  disonlers 
among  Christians,  that  unquestionably  existed  during  the 
apostolic  age.  But  we  must  be  careful  not  to  have  an  exag- 
gerated idea  of  their  nature  or  extent.  They  were  such  as 
could  not  but  attend  so  wonderful  a  change  of  thousfht  and 
feeling  as  our  religion  produced,  and  the  formation  of  a  body 


GENUINENESS    OF   THE   GOSPELS.  255 

of  Christians  in  the  midst  of  such  a  world  as  lay  around  tliem. 
In  the  latter  half  of  the  second  century,  the  catholic  Christians 
were,  as  I  have  said,  pre-eminently  disthiguished  by  their 
religious  character  and  high  morality  ;  and  are  liable  as  a 
community  to  no  graver  charge,  than  that  their  virtues  bor- 
dered on  asceticism,  austerity,  and  enthusiasm.  The  commo- 
tion in  men's  minds  produced  by  the  first  preaching  of  our 
religion  had  subsided.  It  was  better  understood.  The  books 
of  the  New  Testament,  and  especially  the  Gospels,  were  now 
open  to  the  examination  of  all,  and  afforded  means  for  study- 
ing its  history  and  character.  The  great  body  of  Christians, 
who  were  united  in  a  common  faith,  had  been  purified  by 
severe  sufferings  and  persecution,  and  by  the  discipline  which 
they  maintained  among  themselves.  They  were  a  new  class 
of  men,  standing  in  contrast  with  their  heathen  contempo- 
raries;  and  the  grosser  vices  of  the  world  found  either  no 
entrance  or  no  toleration  among  them.  But  it  is  not  strange 
if  the  overwhelming  licentiousness  of  the  times  forced  itself 
in,  where  the  weaker  faith  and  the  erroneous  doctrines  of  the 
Gnostics  presented  a  feebler  resistance,  or  opened  a  way  for 
its  admission. 

But  this  subject  requires  some  further  explanation.  "We 
may  readily  understand  why,  at  the  present  day,  individuals 
without  Christian  faith,  or  without  Christian  morals,  should 
claim  to  be  called  Christians,  or  why  the  generality  of  men  in 
a  Christian  country,  whatever  may  be  the  strength  of  their 
faith  or  its  practical  influence,  should  acquiesce  in  being 
numbered  as  believers ;  but  the  inquiry  may  well  arise,  how 
it  was,  that,  when  to  be  a  Christian  was  to  expose  one's  self 
to  hatred  and  persecution,  any  should  take  that  name,  except 
from  such  sincere  conviction  and  such  conscientious  motives 
as  would  preserve  them  from  indulging  in  the  vices  of  the 
heathen  world,  and  especially  from  justifying  such  indulgence 
on  principle. 


256  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

The  solution  of  the  fact  is,  that  the  looser  heretics  did  not 
expose  themselves  to  persecution.  The  hatred  of  the  Hea- 
thens to  the  Christians  manifested  itself  by  irregular  out- 
breaks. It  would  be  a  great  mistake  to  suppose,  that  the 
proceedings  against  them,  at  least  before  the  latter  part  of 
the  third  century,  resembled  the  systematized  persecution 
of  infidels  and  heretics  in  those  Roman-Catholic  countries 
where  the  Inquisition  has  been  established.  The  steady 
action  of  law  was  unknown  throughout  the  Roman  Empire. 
Its  machinery  was  wholly  out  of  order.  Its  workings  were 
irregular  and  interrupted.  After  the  time  of  Nero  till  that  of 
Diocletian,  the  emperors,  for  the  most  part,  appear  rather  to 
have  yielded  to  the  spirit  of  persecution,  than  to  liave  excited 
it.  The  sufferings  of  the  Christians  were  occasioned  far  less 
by  their  edicts,  than  by  the  superstition  and  enmity  of  the 
lower  classes,  the  cruelty  of  some  of  the  provincial  governors, 
and  the  license  and  rapacity  of  the  soldiery.  Such  persecu- 
tors would,  in  general,  select  their  victims  from  the  most 
conscientious  and  zealous  among  the  number  of  those  who, 
from  their  circumstances  in  life,  might  b&  most  easily  op- 
pressed, or  who,  being  conspicuous  among  Christians,  had,  at 
the  same  time,  incurred  some  particular  odium.  The  more 
licentious  among  the  heretics  had  little  to  fear.  They  prob- 
ably called  themselves  Gnostics,  or  enlightened  men,  rather 
than  Christians ;  for  the  latter  name  might  not  only  have 
exposed  them  to  obloquy  and  danger,  but  would  have  con- 
founded them  with  the  great  body  of  believers,  whom  they 
looked  down  upon  with  contempt.  They  were  connected 
with  the  heathen  world  In  Its  vices  and  in  its  idol-worship. 
Moreover,  a  man  devoid  of  conscientiousness  and  self-devo- 
tion need  apprehend  no  danger,  even  if,  by  some  accident,  he 
might  be  accused  as  a  Christian.  The  judicial  trials  of 
Christians  were  very  unlike  those  of  heretics  in  later  times. 
The  accused  had  his  condemnation  or  acquittal  in  his  own 
power.     He  might  save  himself  by  renouncing  his  faith,  or 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  257 

by  denying  it.  All  that  was  required  of  lilm  was  to  profess 
himself  not  a  Christian,  and  to  burn  incense  before  the  jud^^e 
in  honor  of  an  idol,  or  to  swear  by  the  genius  of  tho 
emperor. 

It  appears,  indeed,  that  many  of  the  theosophic  Gnostics 
withdrew  themselves  from  that  severe  discipline  of  persecu- 
tion to  which  the  catholic  Christians  were  exposed,  and 
which  tended  essentially  to  preserve  their  moral  energy,  their 
spiritual  character,  and  their  high  tone  of  virtue.  Tertullian 
has  a  discourse,  written  with  all  his  usual  vehemence,  against 
such  as  dissuaded  from  martyrdom.  It  is  entitled  Scorpiace, 
that  is,  "  An  Antidote  against  Scorpions ; "  for  to  scorpions 
he  compares  those  whom  he  considered  as  endeavoring  to 
instil  poison  into  others,  which  would  cause  their  spiritual 
death.  "  When  the  faith,"  he  says,  "  is  vexed  with  fire,  and 
the  Church  is  in  the  midst  of  flames,  like  the  burning  bush, 
then  the  Gnostics  break  out,  then  the  Valentinians  creep 
forth,  then  all  the  opposers  of  martyrdom  are  made  active  by 
the  heat  to  strike,  to  dart  their  stings,  and  to  kill."  *  They 
taught,  that  to  profess  the  faith  at  the  cost  of  life  was  not 
required  by  God,  who  desires  the  death  of  no  man,  but  was 
an  act  of  folly.  The  true  profession  they  maintained  to  be 
the  holding  of  the  true  doctrine  in  the  sight  of  God,  not  a 
profession  made  openly  before  men.  Similar  principles  and 
a  corresponding  practice  are  charged  upon  the  heretics  gener- 
ally by  Irenaius,  though  he  admits  that  there  had  been 
martyrs  from  their  number.  The  Gnostics,  according  to  him, 
maintained  that  it  was  not  necessary  to  submit  to  martyrdom. 
Their  doctrine  was  the  true  attestation  of  their  faith.f 
"  Some,"  he  says,  "  have  had  the  hardihood  to  despise  mar- 
tyrs, and  to  cast  censure  on  those  who  are  put  to  death  for 
the  profession  of  the  Lord."  %     The  same  account  is  given 


*  Scorpiace,  c.  1,  p.  487.       f  Cont.  Hjeres.,  lib.  iv.  c.  33,  §  9,  p.  272. 
X  Ibid.,  lib.  iii.  c.  18,  §5,  p.  210. 

17 


258  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

of  one  portion  of  the  heretics  by  Clement  of  Alexandria. 
Through  an  irreligious  and  cowardly  love  of  life,  he  says, 
they  represented  martyrdom  as  self-murder ;  maintaining  the 
true  Christian  testimony  was  not  a  martyr's  testimony,  but 
their  own  higher  knowledge  of  Him  who  is  really  God. 
Clement,  however,  says,  that  other  heretics  (referring,  doubt- 
less, to  the  Marcionites)  were,  through  enmity  to  the  Creator, 
eager  to  expose  themselves  to  martyrdom.  *  A  writer  quoted 
by  Eusebius  observes,  that  some  heretical  sects  had  furnished 
many  martyrs,  and  particularly  mentions  the  Marcionites  as 
claiming  this  distinction,  f 

Among  the  theosophic  Gnostics,  the  ascetics,  we  may  pre- 
sume, were  equally  ready  with  the  Marcionites  to  suffer 
when  their  faith  required  it.  Of  the  practice  and  the  doc- 
trine of  others  of  that  class  of  Gnostics,  but  especially  of  the 
principles  of  their  leaders,  we  may  judge  in  some  degree  from 
a  passage  of  the  Vaientinian,  Heracleon,  preserved  by  Clem- 
ent of  Alexandria,^  a  part  of  which  has  been  already  quoted. § 
It,  at  once,  serves  to  explain,  and  to  give  credibility  to,  what 
is  said  concerning  them  by  their  catholic  opponents.  In 
commenting  on  the  words  of  Jesus,  in  which  he  speaks  of 
that  profession  of  him  which  his  disciples  were  required  to 
make  before  men,  and  especially  before  those  in  authority, 
Heracleon  says,  that  there  is  a  profession  which  is  made  by 
faith  and  conduct,  and  another  by  words  ;  that  the  latter, 
which  is  made  before  those  in  authority,  is  erroneously  con- 
sidered by  most  as  the  only  profession  ;  but  that  it  may 
be  made  by  hypocrites,  and  that  it  has  not  been  made  by  all 
those  who  have  been  saved,  and,  among  them,  not  by  several 
of  the  apostles.  It  is  only  partial,  not  complete :  complete 
profession  is  made  by  works  and  deeds,  corresponding  to 
faith  in  Christ.     He  who  makes  this  profession  will  make  the 


•  Stromat.,  iv.  §  4,  p.  571.  f   Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  v.  c.  16. 

t  Siromat.,  iv.  §  9,  pp.  595,  596.       §  See  before,  p.  227. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        259 

other,  should  it  become  a  duty,  and  reason  require  it.  He 
will  rightly  profess  Christ  in  words  who  has  previously  pro- 
fessed him  in  his  dispositions.  Heracleon  adds  more  to  the 
same  effect,  but  nothing  which  alters  the  complexion  of  the 
passage.  In  his  comments  upon  it,  Clement  says,  that  here 
and  elsewhere  Heracleon,  whom  he  calls  the  most  approved 
of  the  Valentinians,  appears  to  agree  in  opinion  with  catliolic 
Christians.  He  conceives,  however,  that  he  has  disregarded 
the  fact,  that  a  martyr's  profession  is  alone  sufficient  proof  of 
sincere  faith  ;  and  observes  on  the  unreasonableness  of  sup- 
posing that  it  might  be  made  by  a  hypocrite.  "  To  profess 
our  faith,"  he  goes  on  to  say,  "  is  the  duty  of  all,  for  this 
is  in  our  power :  to  defend  it  is  not  the  duty  of  all,  for  it  may 
not  be  in  our  power,"*  —  words  that  may  remind  one  of 
Latimer,  when,  broken  by  age  and  suffering,  he  declared  to 
his  judges,  that  he  could  not  argue  for  his  religion,  but  that 
he  could  die  for  it. 

However  unobjectionable,  in  themselves  considered,  were 
the  leading  sentiments  of  Heracleon,  they  were,  when  thus 
nakedly  stated,  not  altogether  apposite  to  the  times.  It  is 
not  too  much  to  say,  that  he  discovers  some  tendency  to 
depreciate  that  bold  profession  of  Christ,  by  which,  when 
made  before  a  persecuting  judge,  a  Christian  sealed  his  con- 
demnation to  torture  and  death.  It  is  easy  to  perceive  how 
his  view  of  the  subject  might  degenerate  into  that  which 
Tertullian,  in  his  "  Scorpiace,"  says  was  presented  by  the 
Valentinians. 

There  is,  indeed,  a  very  striking  contrast  between  the  pas- 
sage of  Heracleon,  and  two  treatises  which  remain  to  us,  one 
by  Tertullian,  and  the  other  by  Origen.  That  of  Tertullian 
is  entitled  "  Concerning  Flight  in  Persecution."  It  is  a 
strong  exhortation  not  to  avoid  persecution,  either  by  flight, 
or  by  buying  off  those  who  threatened  to  become  informers. 

*  Stromat.,  iv.  §  9,  p.  596. 


260  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

It  is  written  with  the  intense  earnestness  of  one  who,  if  he 
had  not  been  a  Christian,  might  have  raised  a  warrior's  voice, 
of  power  — 

"  To  cheer  in  the  mid  battle,  ay,  to  turn  the  flying." 

There  can  be  little  doubt,  that  often,  under  the  circumstances 
of  those  times,  the  course  of  conduct  to  which  he  exhorted 
was  that  most  honorable  to  Christians,  most  likely  to  com- 
mand the  respect  of  their  enemies,  and  best  adapted  to  extend 
the  knowledge  and  influence  of  our  religion.  In  more  than 
one  instance,  persecution  appears  to  have  been  checked  by 
the  number  and  intrepidity  of  those  who  were  ready  to  sub- 
mit to  martyrdom.  There  may  be  errors  of  reasoning  in  his 
work,  but  the  deepest  sincerity  is  evident  throughout ;  and, 
compared  with  his  other  writings,  it  has  a  subdued  tone  of 
expression  suited  to  the  subject.  It  is  characterized,  at  the 
same  time,  by 'an  unshrinking  consistency,  in  which  its  severe 
purpose  is  never  for  a  moment  lost  sight  of,  and  by  a  sus- 
tained energy  of  wholly  unworldly  feeling.  Tertullian  con- 
cludes it  with  the  following  words :  — 

"This  doctrine,  brother,  perhaps  seems  to  you  hard  and  intol- 
erable. But  recollect  what  God  said,  —  Let  him  who  can  receive 
it  receive  it ;  that  is,  Let  hina  who  cannot  receive  it  depart.  He 
who  fears  to  suffer  does  not  belong  to  Hira  who  suffered.  But  he 
who  does  not  fear  to  suffer  is  perfect  in  love,  the  love  of  God  ;  for- 
jjerfect  love  casts  out  fear.  Thus  it  is,  that  many  are  called,  hut 
few  are  chosen.  He  is  not  sought  for,  who  is  ready  to  follow  the 
broad  way,  but  he  who  will  take  the  narrow  path.  And  thus 
the  Paraclete  is  necessary,  the  leader  into  all  truth,  the  en- 
courager  to  endure  all  things ;  and  they  who  have  received  him 
neither  fly  persecution,  nor  buy  it  off;  we  having  Lira  on  our 
side,  both  to  speak  for  us  when  interrogated,  and  to  aid  us  when 
suffering." 

Tertullian,  when  he  wrote  this  tract,  had  become  a  Mon- 
tanist ;  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  the  Montanists  believed  to 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  261 

have  spoken  by  Montanus,  they  commonly  denominated  the 
Paraclete. 

There  is  as  great  a  difference  between  the  treatise  of 
Origen  and  that  of  TertuUian  as  may  well  exist  between  two 
works  of  able  writers,  relating  to  the  same  subject,  and 
having  nearly  the  same  purpose.  That  of  Origen  is  of  par- 
ticular interest.  It  was  addressed,  during  a  time  of  persecu- 
tion, to  two  friends,  with  one  of  whom  he  appears  to  have 
been  particularly  connected,  to  exhort  them  to  meet  suffering 
and  death  with  Christian  fortitude.  When  we  can  bring 
before  our  minds  all  that  is  implied  in  one  friend's  writing  to 
another  to  encourage  him  to  martyrdom,  we  may,  in  one 
respect,  have  a  distinct  conception  of  the  state  and  character 
of  the  early  catholic  Christians.  The  address  of  Origen  is 
affectionate,  considerate,  and  respectful,  but  with  no  expres- 
sion of  temporary  excitement.  On  the  contrary,  it  has  some- 
thing of  his  usual  languor  and  diffuseness  of  style,  and 
oversubtilty  of  thought.  It  is  characterized  by  the  calmness 
of  one  who  was  thoroughly  penetrated  by  the  spirit  of  our 
religion,  whose  earthly  passions  had  been  subdued,  whose 
hopes  were  fixed  on  heaven ;  and  who  had  thus  learned  to 
look  on  life  and  death  indifferently,  and  to  contemplate 
suffering  as  one  prepared  for  it. 

'♦I  would,"  says  Origen,  "  that  you  may  be  able  through  the 
whole  of  this  present  conflict  to  bear  in  mind  the  great  reward 
which  is  laid  up  in  heaven  for  those  who  are  persecuted  and  reviled 
for  righteousness'  sake,  and  for  the  sake  of  the  Son  of  man  ;  so  as 
to  rejoice  and  exult,  and  leap  for  joy,  as  the  apostles  in  former 
days  rejoiced,  when  they  were  deemed  worthy  to  suffer  contumely 
for  him.  .  .  .  Would,  indeed,  that  your  souls  may  not  be  at  all 
perturbed,  but  that,  when  standing  before  the  tribunal,  and  when 
the  naked  sword  hangs  over  your  throats,  you  may  be  strengthened 
by  the  peace  of  God  which  passes  all  understanding,  and  made 
calm  by  the  thought  that  they  who  are  absent  from  the  body  are 
present  with  the  Lord  of  all !  But,  if  we  are  not  able  always  to 
preserve  our  firmness,  I  would  at  least  that  our  trouble  may  not 


262  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

appear,    and    show    itself    to    those    who    are    alien    from    our 
faith."* 

"  Whether  our  profession  of  Christ  be  complete  or  not,  we  may 
thus  determine.  If,  through  the  whole  time  of  the  inquisition  and 
temptation,  we  yield  no  place  in  our  hearts  to  the  Devil,  who 
would  corrupt  us  with  evil  thoughts  of  denying  our  faith,  or  cause 
us  to  hesitate,  or  pervert  us  by  some  sophistry  to  what  is  at  enmity 
with  a  martyr's  testimony  and  our  perfection ;  if,  Avith  this,  we 
bring  no  stain  upon  ourselves  by  any  word  foreign  from  our  pro- 
fession ;  if  we  endure  all  the  reproach  and  mockery  and  laughter 
and  reviling  of  our  adversaries,  and  the  pity  which  they  seem  to 
have  for  us,  regarding  us  as  in  error  and  foolish,  and  speaking  to 
us  as  deluded ;  and,  still  more,  if  the  strong  love  of  children,  or 
their  mother,  or  any  of  those  dearest  to  us  in  this  world,  do  not 
violently  draw  us  back  to  their  enjoyment  or  to  this  life,  but, 
turning  from  them  all,  we  can  devote  ourselves  wholly  to  God, 
and  to  that  life  which  is  with  him,  as  about  to  be  associated  with 
his  only  Son  and  with  his  followers,  —  then  we  may  say  that  we 
have  fully  perfected  our  profession."  f 

The  tone  of  mind  expressed  by  Tertullian  and  Origen  is 
very  different  from  that  of  Heracleon.  It  is  to  men  possessed 
with  their  spirit  that  we  are  indebted,  through  the  providence 
of  God,  for  the  preservation  of  Christianity.  Wholly  relieved, 
as  we  are,  from  the  necessity  of  practising  those  high  and 
hard  duties  which  were  appointed  to  them,  we  may  be  unable, 
without  an  effort,  to  enter  into  their  principles  and  feelings. 
Looking,  under  very  different  circumstances,  to  the  severe 
sufferings  to  which  they  were  summoned,  and  not  having 
been  strengthened  to  meet  them  by  that  preparatory  discipline 
which  they  had  gone  through,  we  may  even  shrink  from 
sympathy,  and  feel  rather  with  those  who  fled,  or  bought  off 
their  accusers,  in  times  of  persecution.  But  let  us  at  least  be 
just,  and  give  honor  where  honor  is  due ;  and  not  suffer  our 


*  Exhortatio  ad  ^rartyrium,  §  4;  Origen.  0pp.  i.  276. 
t  Ibid.,  §  11,  p.  281. 


GENUINENESS    OF   THE   GOSPELS.  263 

attention  to  be  engrossed  by  the  extravagance  that  sometimes 
marked  the  strength  of  those  virtues  which  tlie  early  Chris- 
tians displayed,  and  almost  necessarily  accompanied  them  in 
such  minds  as  TertuUian's.* 

I  have  spoken  of  the  Gnostics  as  they  existed  in  the 
second  century,  and  of  the  charges  brought  against  them  by 
the  early  fathers,  the  fathers  of  the  second  and  third  centuries. 
After  this  time,  there  is,  as  I  have  before  remarked,  little 
reason  to  believe  that  any  proper  Gnostic  sects  survived  in 
much  vigor.  Their  doctrines  were  such  as  strike  with  the 
glare  of  novelty,  and  are  thrown  aside  when  that  becomes 
tarnished.  They  were  superseded  by  the  kin(h'ed  sect  of  the 
Manichoeans.  Through  the  union  of  Christianity  with  the  im- 
perial power,  a  flood  of  corruption  poured  in  among  Chris- 
tians ;  and,  in  the  fourth  century,  a  variety  of  new,  bitter, 
worldly  controversies  arose,  which  diverted  men's  attention 
from  the  old  errors  of  the  Gnostics,  except  as  a  matter  of 
history,  and  a  means  of  blackening  the  name  of  heretic  by 
odious  representations  of  those  who  had  borne  it.  There  is 
no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  Gnostics  who  still  remained 
shared  in  the  degeneracy  of  that  evil  age,  when  darkness  was 

*  Gibbon  (chap.  xvi.  note  100)  says,  that  the  treatise  of  TertuUian  is 
"  filled  with  the  wildest  fanaticism  and  the  most  incoherent  declamation." 
That  a  work  such  as  I  have  described  should  appear  to  a  writer  like  Gibbon 
expressive  of  the  wildest  fanaticism  may  easily  be  supposed.  But  the  asser- 
tion that  it  is  full  of  incoherent  declamation  is  utterly  unfounded.  No  writer 
ever  kept  his  purpose  more  steadily  in  view  than  does  TertuUian  in  this 
treatise. 

Very  probably,  Gibbon  had  never  read  it;  but  he  had  perhaps  seen  what 
is  said  by  Jortin :  "  In  the  persecution  under  Severus,  many  fled  to  avoid  it, 
or  gave  money  to  redeem  themselves.  TertuUian,  like  a  frantic  Moiitanist, 
condemned  these  expedients"  (Remarks  on  Ecclesiastical  History  (Lond. 
1805),  vol.  ii  p.  90).  —  Jortin  was  a  scholar  of  some  elegance  and  some  acute- 
ness,  but  of  little  compass  of  mind,  and  wanting  almost  every  requisite 
essential  in  treating  of  the  history  of  the  early  Christians.  In  aiming  at 
smartness  of  style,  he  sometimes  falls  into  flippancy. 


264  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

beginning  to  close  over  men,  and  they  were  about  to  enter  on 
that  long  series  of  centuries  which  marks  the  history  of  the 
world  with  its  mental  and  moral  desolation.  But  the  specific 
charges  urged  against  the  Gnostics  by  the  orthodox  historians 
of  heresy  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  with  Epiphanius 
at  tlieir  head,  are  so  obviously  in  great  part  calumnies,  as  to 
afford  no  safe  ground  for  determining  what  was,  or  what  had 
been,  the  character  of  those  against  whom  they  are  brought. 

It  appears,  then,  from  what  precedes,  that  there  was  great 
diversity  of  moral  character  among  the  Gnostics.  Some  were 
distinguished  for  their  severe  asceticism,  and  others  for  their 
principled  licentiousness.  The  inveterate  prejudices  of  the 
Gentiles  against  the  Jews  and  Judaism;  the  traditionary 
errors  of  the  Jews  concerning  their  religion ;  the  form,  conse- 
quently, in  which  it  was  presented  to  the  minds  of  the  new 
converts ;  and  their  inability  to  comprehend  the  subject  cor- 
rectly, and  to  solve  in  a  satisfactory  manner  the  difficulties 
with  which  it  was  and  is  embarrassed,  —  caused  a  portion  of  the 
Gentile  converts  to  separate  the  Mosaic  -dispensation  from 
the  Christian,  and  to  regard  the  latter  alone  as  coming  from  the 
Supreme  Being.  These  were  the  Gnostics.  But  the  arbi- 
trary hypothesis  of  a.  Supreme  God  and  an  inferior  god,  by 
which  the  Gnostics  made  a  forced  separation  of  Judaism  from 
Christianity,  and  the  inconsistency  of  their  scheme  with  the 
plain  language  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  spread  confusion 
and  indistinctness  through  all  their  conceptions  of  our  religion. 
Notwithstanding  this,  the  Marcionites,  influenced  more  by 
moral  and  Christian  feeling  than  by  any  other  cause  in 
rejecting  the  representations  of  the  Old  Testament  as  appli- 
cable to  the  true  God,  did  not  fall  behind  the  catholic  Chris- 
tians in  the  strictness  or  strength  of  their  self-denying  virtues. 
On  the  contrary,  there  seems  to  have  been  much  of  fanaticism 
mixed  with  their  renunciation  of  the  pleasures  of  this  life. 
But  the  theosophic   Gnostics  were  less  detached  from  the 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  205 

heathen  world.  They  drew  their  vague  speculations  from 
its  philosophy._  There  was  a  tendency  in  their  minds  to  sub- 
stitute for  the  realities  of  God's  revelation  a  baseless,  abstract 
faith,  the  evidence  of  which  was  the  testimony  of  tlieir  own 
spiritual  nature.  They  seem  to  have  regarded  Christianity 
too  much  as  a  system  of  philosopiiy,  and  too  little  as  a  divine 
revelation.  They  tlius  stood  as  a  sort  of  intermediate  class 
between  the  catholic  Christians  and  the  Heathens.  Many  of 
them,  doubtless,  received  our  religion  in  good  foith,  accoi'ding 
to  their  modification  of  it,  and  conformed  their  lives  to  the 
moral  purity  which  it  requires  ;  but  it  does  not  apj)ear  that 
any  considerable  number  felt  it  to  be  a  means  of  the  moral 
renovation  of  mankind,  or  regarded  themselves  as  called  upon 
to  seal  their  testimony  to  it  with  their  blood.  It  is  clear  that 
they  had  not  that  zeal  in  avowing  and  defending  and  propa- 
gating their  faith,  as  of  inestimable  value  to  their  fellow-men, 
which  exposed  the  catholic  Christians  to  persecution.  Some 
of  them,  pretending,  perhaps,  as  men  of  enlightened  minds,  to 
hold  in  disregard  outward  forms  of  religion,  joined,  of  their 
own  accord,  in  idol-sacrifices ;  while  others,  like  the  ancient 
heathen  philosophers,  were  probably  ready  to  escape  odium 
and  vexation  by  whatever  compliances  were  necessary  with 
the  popular  superstitions.  It  appears,  further,  that  there  were 
some,  perhaps  many,  of  their  number,  who,  though  not  coun- 
tenanced by  theif  principal  leaders,  or  the  more  respectable 
portion  of  the  theosophic  Gnostics,  seized  on  the  doctrine  of 
the  incorruptible  purity  of  their  spiritual  nature,  as  a  pretence 
for  indulging  in  gross  vices.  The  existence  of  such  a  class 
of  men,  not  altogether  destitute  of  belief  in  the  divine  mission 
of  our  Saviour,  is,  as  we  have  seen,  accounted  for  by  causes 
that  had  been  in  operation  from  the  time  when  St.  Paul  first 
gathered  converts  from  the  Gentiles.  They  were  early 
thrown  off  from  the  body  of  catholic  Christians,  and  became 
apostates  or  heretics.  It  may  readily  be  believed  that  they 
had  no  attachment  to  Judaism  which  would  prevent  them 


266         GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS. 

from  becoming  Gnostics,  and,  in  the  pride  of  their  new 
spiritual  superiority,  looking  down  upon  the  unenlightened 
and  over-scrupulous  body  of  Christians  by  whom  they  were 
rejected.  In  taking  this  course,  they  met  with  no  obstacle ; 
for,  among  the  generality  of  theosophic  Gnostics,  there  was  no 
combination  or  discipline  which  might  have  repelled  or  ex- 
cluded the  unworthy  from  being  associated  with  them. 

Nor  was  there  any  thing  precisely  to  define  the  limits 
between  the  theosophic  Gnostics  and  individuals  holding 
Gnostic  opinions,  and  more  or  less  affected  by  the  widely 
spreading  influence  of  Christianity,  who  yet  had  no  title  to 
the  name  of  Christians.  But,  though  the  limits  were  unde- 
fined, there  was  the  well-marked  general  distinction  between 
those  who  decidedly  belonged  to  one  class  or  the  other,  that 
the  former  believed,  and  the  latter  did  not  believe,  the  divine 
mission  of  Christ.  In  respect,  also,  to  one  noted  pseuda- 
Christian  sect  which  has  been  mistaken  for  a  branch  of  the 
Gnostics,  —  I  mean  the  Carpocratians,  —  it  will  appear,  I  think, 
from  what  is  about  to  be  said,  that  its  members  did  not  even 
hold  Gnostic  doctrines.  We  must  therefore  separate,  as  far 
as  possible,  the  pseudo-Christians  from  the  Gnostics ;  and  to 
this  subject  we  will  next  attend. 


CHAPTER    V. 

ON  SOME  PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN  SECTS  AND  INDIVIDUALS  WHO 
HAVE  BEEN  IMPROPERLY  CONFOUNDED  WITH  THE  GNOS- 
TICS. 

We  have  seen  that  Simon  Magus  is  represented  by  the 
fathers  as  the  parent  of  all  the  heretical  sects :  while,  at  the 
same  time,  he  is  described,  not  as  a  disciple  of  Christ,  but  as 
opposing  himself  to  Christ  as  a  rival.  His  followers,  the 
Simonians,  therefore,  were  not  Christians.  These  facts  may 
induce  us  readily  to  give  credit  to  the  supposition,  that  among 
those  who  may  seem  to  be,  or  who  are,  enumerated  as  Chris- 
tian heretics,  by  some  one  or  more  of  the  fathers,  there  were 
other  sects  or  individuals  who  had  no  title  to  the  name  of 
Christian ;  though  many  of  them  may  have  held  the  Gnostic 
doctrine,  that  the  material  universe  is  the  work  of  a  being 
or  beings  imperfect  or  evil.  This  confusion,  if  it  exist,  of 
Christian  and  pseudo-Christian  sects  must  be  removed,  before 
we  can  form  a  correct  notion  of  the  Gnostics ;  and  the  inves- 
tigation of  the  subject  may  also  serve  to  make  us  acquainted 
with  the  character  of  the  times,  and  the  effects  produced  by 
the  promulgation  of  Christianity. 

Among  the  sects  referred  to,  the  Carpocratians  may  be 
first  mentioned.  They  had  their  origin  in  Alexandria,  and 
became  conspicuous  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century. 


268  EVIDENCES    OF   THE 

By  Irenajus  they  are  classed  with  the  Gnostics ;  and,  accord- 
ing to  him,  they  affirmed  that  the  world  was  made  by  angels. 
But  a  comparison  of  his  whole  account  *  with  the  information 
afforded  by  Clement  of  Alexandria  t  may  lead  us  to  the  con- 
clusion, that  the  Carpocratians  were  neither  Christians  nor 
heathen  Gnostics,  but  a  corrupt  sect  of  Platonists,  who  pre- 
tended to  regard  Christ  as  a  very  eminent  philosopher  among 
the  barbarians,  as  Confucius  was  at  one  time  celebrated  by 
European  men  of  letters.  This  may  appear  from  what  fol- 
lows. 

With  Carpocrates  was  connected,  as  a  founder  of  the  sect, 
his  son  Epiphanes,  the  author  of  a  work  "  Concerning  Just- 
ice," from  which  Clement  quotes  a  series  of  passages.|  The 
purpose  of  them  is  to  maintain  that  no  property  should  exist, 
but  that  all  things  should  be  common  to  all.  "  The  justice 
of  God,"  Epiphanes  says,  "  is  a  certain  equal  distribution."  § 
Following  out  his  principles,  he  maintains,  as  Plato  had 
taught  in  his  Republic,  that  there  should  be  a  community  of 
women ;  women  in  Egypt  and  Greece,  as  in  the  East,  being 
regarded  much  in  the  light  of  property.  For  his  doctrine  of 
equality  he  argues  from  the  natural  order  of  things  ;  accord- 
ing to  which,  for  example,  God  gives  the  light  of  the  sun 
equally  to  all ;  and  a  common  nature,  and  food  in  common,  to 
all  the  individuals  of  the  different  species  of  animals.  This 
order  he  vindicates  as  good  ;  he  regards  it  as  a  manifestation 
of  the  great  moral  law  of  all  beings,  and  ascribes  it  to  the 
"  Maker  and  Father  of  all,"  that  is,  to  the  Supreme  God. 

It  appears,  therefore,  that  Epiphanes  regarded  the  order 
of  nature  as  good,  and  as  proceeding  from  the  Supreme 
Being.  He  differed,  therefore,  from  the  Gnostics  in  their 
fundamental  doctrine.     They  considered  the  order  of  nature 

*  Cont.  Ilaeres.,  lib.  i.  c.  25,  pp.  103-105,  c.  28,  §  2,  p.  107;  lib.  ii.  cc. 
81-33,  pp.  164-168. 

t  Stroniiit.,  iii,  §  2,  pp.  511-515.  J  Stromat.,  ill.,  ubi  supra. 

§  p.  512. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        269 

as  full  of  defects  and  evils,  and  ascribed  it,  in  consequence,  to 
an  imperfect  Creator.  But  Epiphanes,  it  is  clear,  had  no 
such  being  in  view.  He  ascribes  the  constitution  of  things  in 
the  material  universe  to  the  Supreme  God,  wliom  alone  he 
regards  as  the  Creator.  He  was,  moreover,  so  far  from  hold- 
ing the  doctrine  of  the  Gnostics,  which  identified  the  Creator 
with  the  God  of  the  Jews,  that,  as  quoted  by  Clement,  he 
considered  the  command,  "  Thou  shalt  not  covet,"  as  ridicu- 
lous, and  more  especially  the  command,  "  Thou  shalt  not 
covet  thy  neighbor's  wife ; "  they  being,  according  to  him, 
directly  opposite  to  the  ordinances  of  the  Creator  as  mani- 
fested in  his  works.  Epiphanes,  then,  was  not  a  Gnostic, 
nor  was  his  father  Carpocrates,  from  whom  he  derived  his 
principles,  nor  the  followers  of  both,  by  whom  they  were 
adopted.  Nor  had  they,  I  conceive,  more  title  to  be  consid- 
ered as  Christians. 

It  is  the  obvious  remark  of  Clement,  that  the  doctrines 
alleged  clearly  subvert  the  Law  and  the  Gospel.  Upon 
their  first  aspect,  they  show  themselves  to  be  the  doctrines 
of  one  who  had  no  deference  for  the  divine  authority  of 
Christ.  Their  advocate,  Epiphanes,  was,  according  to  Clem- 
ent, a  youth  of  extraordinary  precocity,  who  died  at  the  age 
of  seventeen,  after  having  been  educated  by  his  father  in  the 
different  branches  of  knowledge,  particularly  in  the  Platonic 
philosophy.  Clement  says  that  his  mother  was  a  native  of 
Cephallenia,  and  that  in  Same,  a  city  of  that  island,  a  temple 
was  erected  to  him  as  a  god,  and  divine  honors  were  paid  hira 
after  his  death.  There  seems  no  reasonable  ground  for  doubt- 
ing this  account.  There  is  nothing  in  it  inconsistent  with  the 
customs  of  the  Heathens.  Clement  lived  in  the  same  century 
with  Epiphanes,  and  in  the  same  city  in  which  he  was  born ; 
and  the  facts  stated  by  him  are  of  such  a  kind  as  hardly  to 
admit  the  supposition  of  any  essential  mistake  concerning 
them.  But  the  followers  of  Epiphanes,  who  paid  him  divine 
honors,  were  evidently  Heathens.     In  conformity  with  this, 


270  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

Irena3us  tells  us  that  the  Carpocratians  had  images  of  Christ, 
together  with  those  of  heathen  philosophers,  as  Pythagoras, 
Plato,  and  Aristotle,  which  they  crowned  with  garlands,  and 
honored  after  the  ftishion  of  the  Gentiles.*  It  appears,  there- 
fore, that  they  placed  Christ  in  the  same  rank  with  those 
philosophers.  Some  of  them,  he  says,  affirmed  that  they 
were  like  Jesus,  and  some  that  in  certain  respects  they  were 
stronger  or  better.f 

Respecting  their  other  opinions,  Irenseus  states,  that  they 
believed  that  "Jesus  was  the  son  of  Joseph,  and  was  like 
other  men,  except  that  his  soul,  being  strong  and  pure,  re- 
membered what  it  had  seen  in  its  circumgyration  with  the 
unoriginated  God."  $  These  conceptions  were  founded  on 
the  doctrine  of  Plato,  who  had  taught,  in  his  Phaedrus,  the 
pre-existent  immortality  of  all  souls;  and  that  those  of  the 
better  class  had,  before  their  immersion  in  matter,  ascended 
to  the  outer  orb  of  heaven,  where  they  had  been  borne  round 
in  com[)any  wdth  the  gods,  and  had  beheld  the  eternal  Ideas, 
there  presented  to  view,  of  which  all  true  knowledge  is  only 
a  reminiscence.§ 

Irena^us,  attributing  Gnostic  conceptions  to  the  Carpocra- 
tians, goes  on  to  say,  that,  according  to  them,  the  soul  of 


*  Cont.  Hoeres.,  lib.  i.  c.  25,  §  6,  p.  105. 

t  Ibid.,  lib.  i.  c.  25,  §  2,  p.  103;  lib.  ii.  c.  32,  §  3,  p.  165. 

t  Ibid.,  lib.  i.  c.  25,  §  1,  p.  103. 

§  Plato  in  Phsedr^  p.  245,  seqq.  (I  refer  here,  as  elsewhere,  to  the  pages 
of  Henry  Stephens's  edition  (Paris,  1578),  which  are  commonly  numbered  in 
the  margin  of  later  editions.)  Plato  puts  the  representations  there  given  into 
the  mouth  of  Socrates.  They  appear  irreconcilable  with  those  concerning  the 
creation,  and  the  pre-existent  state,  of  souls,  given  in  his  Timgeus,  p.  41,  seqq. 
But  his  imaginations  at  different  times  were  not  unfrequently  at  variance 
with  each  other.  — The  words  of  Plato,  in  his  Phiedrus,  in  sjieaking  of  the 
vision  of  eternal  Ideas  presented  to  pre-existent  souls,  as  borne  round  on 
the  outer  orb  of  heaven,  are  so  characteristic  of  ancient  philosophy  iis  to  be 
worth  (luoting.  '•  This  supercelestial  place,"  he  says,  "  no  poet  here  on  earth 
has  ever  celebrated,  or  will  celebrate,  worthily.  But  thus  it  is;  for  one  must 
dart  tv  describe  it  truly,  es^tciully  one  who  is  discoursing  of  the  truth''  (p.  247). 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  271 

Jesus  being  thus  excellent,  "  power  was  sent  it  by  God  to 
enable  it  to  escape  the  Makers  of  the  world,  and  passing 
through  them  all,  and  being  wholly  liberated,  to  ascend  to 
him ; "  and  that  the  same  would  be  the  case  with  all  souls 
who  followed  his  course.  This  conception  of  Makers  of  the 
world,  disposed  to  impede  the  ascent  of  tlie  soul,  is  Gnostic ; 
but  that  Irenoeus  was  in  error  in  ascribing  it  to  the  Carpo- 
cratians  may  appear  by  what  has  been  quoted  from  Epiplia- 
nea  It  seems  to  have  been  not  uncommon  to  attribute 
incorrectly  to  one  sect  opinions  held,  or  rei)uted  to  be  held, 
by  another.  The  mistake  of  Irenaeus  may  have  arisen  in  this 
way  alone,  or  it  may  be  otherwise  accounted  for.  Through 
the  irregular  action  of  Christianity  upon  their  minds,  and  the 
consequent  unsettling  of  their  old  faith,  the  Carpocratians 
may  have  advanced  so  far  toward  the  opinions  of  the  catholic 
Christians,  as  to  regard  the  inferior  gods  of  the  later  Plato- 
nists,  the  heathen  divinities,  as  evil  spirits ;  and,  if  this  were 
so,  Irenaeus  might  easily  confound  those  inferior  gods  with 
the  creator-angels  of  the  Gnostics.  That  such  was  the  case 
may  be  conjectured  from  what  he  states  to  have  been  said  by 
them ;  namely,  that  the  soul  of  Jesus  had  learned  to  despise 
the  Makers  of  the  world,  in  consequence  of  having  been 
educated  among  the  Jews.*  No  Gnostic  would  have  repre- 
sented Jesus  as  learning  to  despise  the  Makers  of  the  world, 
among  whom  they  commonly  regarded  the  god  of  the  Jews 
as  the  chief,  in  consequence  of  his  being  imbued  with  Jewish 
notions ;  but  the  Carpocratians,  if  such  as  we  have  supposed 
them,  might  well  have  assigned  this  as  a  cause  for  his  con- 
tempt of  the  heathen  divinities.  It  can  hardly  be,  that  the 
account  of  Irenaeus  is  not  erroneous. 

uThe  moials  of  the  Carpocratians  are  portrayed  in  very 
dark  colors  by  their  contemporaries,  Jreni^us  and  Clement. 
They  represent  the  sect  as  having  brought  reproach  on  the 

*  Lib.  i.  c.  25,  §  1,  p.  103. 


272  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

Christian  name,  —  upon  "us,"  says  Irenseus,  "who  have  no 
communion  with  them  either  in  doctrine,  or  in  morals,  or  in 
daily  life."*  The  Heathens,  doubtless,  were  very  ready  to 
impute  to  Christians  the  vices  and  licentiousness  of  those 
whose  minds  had  merely  been  put  in  action  by  the  new  faith, 
of  those  bands  of  outlaws,  who,  not  belonging  to  the  num- 
ber of  the  true  followers  of  our  religion,  yet  accompanied  its 
march,  and  hovered  round  its  outposts.  Some  modern  writers 
have  been  disposed  to  regard  the  charges  brought  against  the 
Carpocratians  by  their  contemporaries  as  improbable,  and  in 
great  part  unfounded.  But  their  principal  argument  is,  that 
the  Carpocratians  were  Christians,  and  that  Christians  could 
not  have  been  guilty  of  such  immoralities.  If,  on  the  con- 
trary, we  regard  them  as  Heathens,  on  whom  ihe  indirect  and 
irregular  influence  of  Christianity  had  had  no  other  effect 
than  to  set  them  free  from  the  restraints  of  common  opinion, 
and  who,  in  consequence,  were  inflated  with  a  notion  of  their 
superiority  to  common  prejudices,  we  shall  perceive  that  they 
were  in  the  very  state  in  which  moral  disorders  might  be 
expected  to  break  out  among  them.  The  charges  against 
them  are,  to  a  great  extent,  confirmed  by  the  principles  of 
Epiphanes,  whom  they  deified.  These  are  advanced  in  th^. 
broadest  manner  in  the  extracts  from  him  given  by  Clement. 
He  maintained  that  all  laws  for  the  security  of  private  prop- 
erty were  in  violation  of  the  universal  law  of  God,  which  had 
given  all  things  in  common  to  all ;  and  that  they  alone  created 
the  offences  which  they  punished.f  This,  indeed,  may  be  con- 
sidered as  little  more  than  a  speculative  principle,  since  society 
imposes  such  severe  penalties  on  those  who  act  in  conformity 
to  it,  that  none  are  likely  to  reduce  it  to  practice  from  a  mere 
conviction  of  its  truth.  But  his  doctrine  respecting  the  pro- 
miscuous intercourse  of  the  sexes,  which  not  only  broke  down 
all  moral  restraint,  but  represented  it  as  an  ordinance  of  God, 


*  Lib.  i.  c.  25,  §  3,  p.  103.  f  Stromal.,  iii.  §  2,  pp.  512,  513. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  273 

IS  sufficient,  especially  when  we  consider  the  state  of  society 
in  which  it  was  promulgated,  to  remove  any  doubt  concerning 
the  reality  of  the  licentiousness  of  which  the  Carpocratians 
were  accused.  They  were  heathen  philosophers,  and  Chris- 
tian chastity  was  not  to  be  learned  from  heathen  philosophy. 
They  were,  as  we  have  supposed,  of  the  school  of  Plato,  and 
in  two  of  his  most  noted  Dialogues  they  might  have  found  a 
mixture  of  philosophical  jargon  with  nameless  impurity.* 
Nor  is  there  any  reason  to  question  what  Irenasus  says  of 
them,t  that  they,  like  the  later  Platonists,  professed  the 
science  and  practice  of  magic  or  theurgy,  and  used  their 
pretended  skill  for  the  purpose  of  deception. 

I  have  reserved  for  a  separate  head  the  mention  of  one 
doctrine  which  Irenoeus  imputes  to  them ;  because,  so  far  as 
it  may  appear  to  have  been  held  by  any  individuals,  it  con- 
nects them  in  a  class  with  other  pseudo- Christians,  main- 
taining that  the  practice  of  scandalous  immoralities  was  a 
religious  duty.  As  followers  of  Plato,  the  Carpocratians 
believed  the  doctrine  of  the  pre-existence  and  transmigration 
of  souls ;  and  maintained,  says  Irena^us,  that  the  soul  would 
not  obtain  its  final  liberation  from  matter  till  it  had  been 
conversant  with  every  kind  of  life  and  every  mode  of  action  ; 
that  is,  as  he  explains  their  meaning,  till  it  had  been  con- 
versant with  every  kind  of  impurity  and  vice.J  A  strong 
doubt  may  at  once  arise  whether  such  a  doctrine  could  have 
been  professed  by  any  individuals ;  and  the  idea  of  acting 
upon  it,  to  its  full  extent,  appears  altogether  monstrous  and 
incredible.  Irenasus  himself  says,  that  he  could  not  believe 
that  their  practice  corresponded  to  their  principles.  What, 
indeed,  were  the  principles  or  the  practice  of  certain  liber- 

*  I  refer  to  the  PhEedrus  and  the  Banquet. 

t  Cont.  Hseres.,  lib.  i.  c.  25,  §  3,  p.  103;  lib.  ii.  c.  31,  §  2,  p.  164,  c  32,  §  3, 
p.  165. 

t  Lib.  i.  c.  25,  §  4,  pp.  103,  104;  lib.  ii.  c.  32,  §  2,  p.  165. 
18 


274  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

tine  individuals  of  the  second  century,  called  Carpocratians ; 
whether  they  were  more  immoral  than  some  have  supposed, 
or  less  immoral  than  their  opponents  represented,  —  is  a  sub- 
ject that  may  seem  wholly  uninteresting  at  the  present  day. 
Certainly  it  is  so,  as  far  as  justice  to  their  memory  is  con- 
cerned. But,  on  the  other  hand,  if  they  held  the  doctrine 
imputed  to  them  by  Irenaeus,  or  if  they  held  any  doc- 
trine which,  without  being  greatly  misrepresented,  might 
afford  occasion  for  the  statement  which  he  makes,  this  is  a 
phenomenon  in  human  nature  that  may  well  deserve  atten- 
tion. 

That  they  did  hold  some  doctrine  of  this  kind,  and  that  he 
did  not  essentially  mistake  their  meaning,  may  appear  from 
various  considerations.  Irenaeus  affirms,  that  it  was  expressed 
in  their  writings ;  and  that  they  taught  that  tjesus  had  com- 
municated it  privately  to  his  apostles  and  disciples,  and  had 
appointed  them  to  communicate  it  to  those  who  were  worthy 
and  obedient.  They  would  not  have  maintained  that  a  doc- 
trine concerning  morals  had  been  taught  privately,  if  it  had 
been  such  as  was  correspondent  to  the  tenor  of  the  Gospels. 
He  says  that  they  accommodated  to  their  doctrine  the  words 
of  our  Saviour,  "  Agree  with  thine  adversary  quickly ; " 
representing  the  adversary  as  Satan,  one  of  the  angels  of  the 
world,  who  would  not  suffer  the  soul  to  obtain  its  freedom 
from  imprisonment  iu  some  mortal  body,  till  it  had  paid  the 
uttermost  farthing  ;  that  is,  according  to  his  explanation,  till 
it  had  been  conversant  in  all  the  works  of  this  world.  His 
appeal  to  their  writings,  and  the  particulars  which  he  gives 
relating  to  their  doctrine,  serve  to  show,  that,  if  his  account 
is  not  true  to  the  letter,  it  still  had  an  essential  foundation  in 
truth.  It  is  repeated  by  other  writers,  particularly  by  Ter- 
tulllau,  who  says,*  that  they  represented  "crimes  as  the 
tribute  which  life  must  pay ;" /aaViora  trihuta  sunt  vitce ; 

•  De  Anima,  c  35,  p.  291. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  275 

and  notes  the  same  perversion  of  Scripture  that  is  mentioned 
by  Iren^eus. 

The  doctrine  in  question,  stated  in  its  least  offensive  form, 
we  may,  perhaps,  conceive  to  have  been,  that  the  soul  must 
have  full  experience  of  this  life  before  passing  into  another 
state,  and  that,  to  this  end,  it  must  be  conversant  with  pleas- 
ures commonly  considered  criminal.  To  represent  indulgence 
in  such  pleasures  as  a  matter  of  religious  obligation  was  con- 
formable to  the  teaching  of  Epiphanes,  that  promis(Hious 
intercourse  of  the  sexes  was  an  ordinance  of  God.  Irenteus 
concludes  his  account  of  the  moral  principles  of  the  Carpo- 
cratians  with  saying,  that  they  taught  that  men  were  "  saved 
by  faith  and  love,  but  that  other  things  wei-e  iuditferent ; 
that,  according  to  the  opinions  of  men,  some  were  accounted 
good  and  others  bad,  but  that  nothing  was  bad  by  nature."  * 
By  faith  they  may  have  meant  a  firm  adherence  to  their 
philosophy ;  for  to  souls  purified  by  [thilosophy  Phito  assigned 
the  highest  places  after  death.  But  in  what  they  said  of 
faith  and  love  we  may  recognize,  perhaps,  a  common  tendency 
of  those  most  licentious  in  their  speculations  or  their  practice 
to  shelter  themselves  under  a  show  of  words  expressive  of 
common  sentiments  or  belief. 

It  may  appear,  then,  that  the  Carpocratians  belonged  to 
the  same  class  with  those  pseudo-Christians  mentioned  by 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  as  quoted  in  the  last  chapter.f  The 
principle  common  to  them  all  was,  that  the  practice  of  scan- 
dalous immoralities  was  a  matter  of  religious  obligation.  It 
may  be  observed,  in  connection,  that  the  charges  brought 
against  them,  however  general  may  be  the  terms  in  which 
they  are  sometimes  expressed,  evidently  relate  principally  to 
the  vices  of  sensuality  and  profligacy. 

The  avowal  of  such  a  principle  may  strike  us  at  first  view 
as  a  moral  absurdity  scarcely  credible.     But  it  was  in  truth 


Lib.  i.  c.  25,  §  5,  p.  104.  f  See  pp.  228-23 L 


276  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

a  principle  with  which  Paganism  had  made  men  familiar,  and 
which  it  had  thoroughly  sanctioned.  In  the  heathen  wor- 
ship, gross  indecencies,  and  abominable  extravagances  and 
debaucheries,  were  represented  as  acceptable  to  many  of 
their  gods,  —  to  Bacchus,  Venus,  Cybele,  and  Flora ;  not  to' 
mention  other  inferior  divinities  of  a  still  baser  character. 
The  public  celebration  of  many  of  the  heathen  rites  was 
marked  with  deep  stains  of  pollution.  In  Egypt,  where 
brute  animals  were  deified,  heathen  writers  tell  us  (whether 
we  can  believe  them  or  not),  that  abominations  were  com- 
mitted in  their  worship,  with  which  even  those  that  Epipha- 
nius  charges  on  the  heretics  whom  he  most  vilifies  are  not 
to  be  compared. 

But,  though  we  receive  as  essentially  true  the  accounts  of 
Irenaeus  and  Clement  respecting  the  pseudo- Christians  whom 
we  have  been  considering,  we  cannot  extend  the  same  credit 
to  the  outrageous  charges  brought  by  writers  of  the  fourth 
and  fifth  centuries,  particularly  by  Epiphanius,  against  some 
of  those  whom  they  represented  as  heretics-.  There  is  a  most 
offensive  specimen  of  them  in  the  account  which  that  writer 
gives  of  a  pretended  sect,  to  which,  with  the  confusion  fre- 
quent in  his  writings,  he  applies  the  name  of  "  Gnostics,"  used 
not  as  a  generic,  but  a  specific  name.*  The  origin  of  his 
appropriation  of  the  term  to  a  particular  sect  may  be  thus 
explained. 

Irena^us  speaks  of  the  Gnostics  whom  he  supposes  to  have 
existed  antecedently  to  their  being  split  into  different  sects 
and  called  after  different  leaders,  simply  under  that  generic 
name,  and  uses  the  same  general  name  also  concerning  those 
whom  he  does  not  refer  to  any  particular  class.  Especially 
at  the  conclusion  of  his  first  book,  after  having  given  an 
account   of    the    principal    Gnostic    sects,   distinguished    by 

*  Haeres.,  xxvi. ;  0pp.  i.  82. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        277 

particular  names,  as  referred  to  their  respective  leaders,  he 
says,  that  beside  these  a  multitude  of  Gnostics  arose,  wliose 
different  doctrines  he  proceeds  to  mention,  without  denoting 
those  who  held  them  by  any  specific  appellations.*  Among 
them  were  those  who  were  afterwards  named  Ophians  and 
Cainites.  Irena^us  likewise  says,  that  the  Carpocratians 
called  themselves  Gnostics ;  t  by  which  appropriation  of  the 
name,  they,  of  course,  meant  nothing  more  than  that  they 
were  "  enlightened  men." 

The  latter  remark  of  IrenjBus  has  led  Eusebius  to  affirm, 
after  speaking  of  Simon  Magus,  Menander,  Saturninus,  and 
Basilides,  that  "  Irena^us  writes,  that  Carpocrates  was  the 
father  of  another  sect,  called  that  of  the  Gnostics."  J  Tlie 
passage  is  remarkable,  as  showing  how  confused  were 
the  notions  of  Eusebius  concerning  the  earlier  heretics, 
and  may  lead  to  the  conclusion,  that,  in  his  time,  they  had 
almost  sunk  out  of  notice.  In  fact,  he  appears  to  have  had 
little  or  no  personal  knowledge  of  them,  and  to  have  used 
Irenaeus  as  his  principal  authority  in  speaking  of  them. 
Him,  it  seems,  he  had  consulted  so  negligently,  that  among 
the  various  sects  of  Gnostics  he  thus  appropriates  the  name 
to  one,  the  Carpocratians,§  as  if  it  belonged  to  them  exclu- 
sively. 

Perhaps,  Epiphanius,  also,  misapprehended  Irenaeus,  mis- 
taking his  use  of  the  term  "  Gnostics  "  as  a  generic  name,  in 
the  passages  before  mentioned,  for  its  use  as  a  specific  appel- 
lation; and  this  mistake  may  have  suggested  to  him  the  fabri- 
cation of  this  sect  of  subordinate  Gnostics.||      But  his  real 

*  Lib.  i.  cc.  26-31,  p.  107,  seqq.  In  the  first  sentence  of  chapter  twenty- 
nintli,  the  word  "  Barbelo  "  appears  to  be  an  interpolation. 

t  Lib.  i.  c.  25,  §  6.  |  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  iv.  c.  7. 

§  In  appropriating  it  to  the  Carpocratians,  he  clitFers  from  Epijjhanius, 
who  distinguishes  between  the  Carpocratians  and  his  Gnostics;  and  who 
Bays  (0pp.  i.  pp-  77,  82),  that  the  latter  had  their  origin  from  the  Nico- 
laitans. 

II  Haeres.,  xxvi.;  0pp.  i.  82,  seqq. 


278  EVIDENCES   OP  THE 

purpose,  I  conceive,  in  his  account  of  this  pretended  sect,  was 
to  cast  odium  upon  all  those  heretics  who  bore  the  name 
of  Gnostics.  Accordingly,  in  his  account  he  makes  no  dis- 
tinction between  this  sect  and  the  whole  body  of  Gnostics,  of 
which,  if  the  sect  existed,  it  could  at  most  have  been  regarded 
only  as  a  subdivision.  His  accusations  stand  against  Gnos- 
tics generally,  without  any  limitation ;  there  being  nothing  in 
this  part  of  his  work  from  which  it  could  be  inferred  that 
there  were  other  heretics  who  bore  the  name  besides  those 
of  whom  he  is  speaking. 

In  conformity  with  what  may  be  presumed  to  have  beeu 
his  purpose,  he  has  loaded  this  fictitious  sect  (as  I  conceive  it 
to  be)  with  charges  of  absurd  doctrines,  abominable  crimes, 
and  loathsome  impurities.  "  Scruples  are  felt,"  says  Beau- 
sobre,  "  about  giving  the  lie  to  Epiphanius,  who  represents 
this  sect  as  Christians ;  but,  for  myself,  I  feel  much  stronger 
scruples  against  ranking  among  Christian  heretics  individuals 
who  were  the  most  profane  of  men,  if  what  is  said  of  them  be 
true."  *  Certainly,  such  individuals  as  Epiphanius  describes 
could  not  have  been  Christians ;  but  it  may  further  be  ob- 
served, that  his  authority  is  not  of  a  kind  to  afford  ground 
for  believing  that  such  individuals  ever  existed,  supposing 
their  existence  possible.  Epiphanius  is  a  writer  as  deficient 
in  plausibility,  as  in  decency  and  veracity.  He  has  in  an 
extraordinary  manner  implicated  his  own  character  in  his 
account;  for,  after  describing  practices  which  no  mind  not 
thoroughly  corrupt  could  regard  as  other  than  inef?\ibly 
odious,  he  asserts  that  he  had  gained  his  knowledge  from 
women  belonging  to  the  sect,  who,  in  his  youth,  had  endeav- 
ored to  corrupt  his  virtue  and  seduce  him  to  join  it ;  f  that  he 
had  been  under  strong  temptation,  but  that  God  in  his  mercy 


*  Histoire  de  Manichc^e  et  du  Manich^isme,  torn.  ii.  p.  68. 

t  According  to  his  own  account,  he  was  acquainted  with  the  private  sign 
by  which  the  members  of  the  sect  recognized  each  other  (Hseres.,  xxvi.  §  4, 
Dp.  85,  86). 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  279 

had  delivered  him,  in  answer  to  his  prayers  and  groans  ;  and 
that  then  he  had  denounced  the  members  of  the  sect,  whoso 
names  had  before  been  unknown,  to  the  "  bishops  in  that 
place  "  (what  bishops,  or  what  place,  he  does  not  specify), 
and  that  "  the  city  "  (a  nameless  city)  had  in  consequence 
been  purged  by  the  banishment  of  about  eighty  individuals  * 

While,  however,  we  reject  in  the  gross  the  account  of 
Epiphanius,  as  not  true  of  any  body  of  men,  it  does  not  follow 
that  it  is  throughout  a  mere  fabrication.  There  may  have 
been  in  his  age  crazy  and  vicious  fanatics,  who  afforded  a 
certain  foundation  for  it.  Some  facts  are  also  to  be  discov- 
ered in  what  Epiphanius  has  brought  together.  He  mentions 
and  quotes  a  book  of  some  interest,  of  which  he  affords  the 
only  account,  and  concerning  which  there  seems  no  reason  to 
suspect  him  of  mistake  or  falsehood.  It  was  called  the 
"  Gospel  of  Eve,"  as  containing  the  wisdom  which  Eve  had 
learned  from  the  Serpent.f  Tliat  it  was  so  called  is  one 
among  the  many  proofs  which  make  evident  what  we  siiall 
hereafter  have  occasion  to  observe,  that  the  title  "  Gospel " 
did  not  imply  that  a  book  to  which  it  was  given  was  a  history 
of  the  ministry  of  Jesus.  But  this  book  is  an  object  of  curi- 
osity for  another  reason.  It  appears  from  the  single  passage 
of  it  extant,  quoted  by  Epiphanius,  to  have  been  founded  on 
the  Egyptian  pantheism.  Conformably  to  this,  he  says,J 
that  those  who  used  it  believed  that  "  the  same  soul  is  dis- 
persed in  animals  and  insects  and  fishes  and  serpents  and 
men,  and  in  herbs  and  trees  and  fruits."  The  passage  from 
the  Gospel  of  Eve  is  to  the  following  efFect.§  The  writer, 
or  the  person  represented  as  speaking,  says,  "  I  stood  on  a 
high  mountain,  and  I  saw  a  man  of  large  stature,  and  another 
mutilated  ;  and  I  heard,  as  it  were,  a  voice  of  thunder ;  and  I 


*  Hseres.,  xxvi.  §  17,  pp.  99,  100.  t  Ibid.,  §  2,  p.  84. 

X  Ibid.,  §  9,  p.  90.  §  Ibid.,  §  3,  p.  84. 


280  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

drew  near  to  hearken,  and  it  spoke  to  me,  and  said,  '  I  am 
thou,  and  thou  art  I ;  and,  wherever  thou  may  est  be,  there 
am  I ;  and  I  am  dispersed  in  all  things  ;  and,  from  whatever 
place  thou  wouldst  collect  me,  in  collecting  me  thou  art 
collecting  thyself.'  " 

What  the  two  figures  were  intended  to  symbolize  cannot,  I 
think,  be  conjectured  with  any  probability.  But  the  words 
uttered  appear  evidently  to  be  an  expression  of  the  pantheistic 
doctrine,  according  to  which  all  individual  beings  are  but 
parts  of  the  one,  sole,  self-subsistent  being,  the  Universe. 
There  is,  perhaps,  in  the  passage,  an  allusion  to  the  fable  of 
the  mutilation  of  the  body  of  Osiris  by  Typhon,  and  the  col- 
lection of  his  members  by  Isis,  which,  when  the  absurdities 
of  ancient  mythology  were  transformed  by  the  philosophers 
of  later  times  into  allegories,  was  mystically  explained,  as 
symbolizing  the  discerption  and  disappearance  of  Ideas,  the 
essential  forms  of  things,  the  body  of  Osiris,  through  the 
action  of  the  destructive  powers  of  nature,  personified  as 
Typhon,  and  their  being  collected  anew  and  re-adapted  to 
their  purpose  by  the  receptive  and  nutritive  powers  typified 
by  Isis.*  The  analogy,  also,  is  striking  between  the  words 
said  to  be  uttered  and  the  inscription  which  Plutarch  reports 
to  have  been  engraved  on  the  temple  of  Isis  at  Sais :  "  I 
am  all  that  has  been,  is,  or  will  be ; "  f  Isis  being  here  per- 


*  Plutarch,  de  leide  et  Osiride,  §  53.  Moral.,  torn.  ii.  pp.  526,  527,  ed. 
Wyttenbach. 

t  Ibid.,  §  9,  p.  453.  Plutarch  concludes  the  inscription  thus:  "And  my 
veil  no  mortal  has  ever  lifted."  Proclus  gives  it  with  a  different  ending. 
That  it  was  actually  to  be  found  on  or  in  the  temple  at  Sals  is  very  doubtful. 
IJut,  as  regards  our  present  purpose,  the  question  is  unimportant,  since  the 
report  of  Plutarch  sufficiently  shows  the  existence  of  this  conception  of  Isis 
long  before  Kpipliaiiius's  notice  of  the  Gospel  of  Eve.  See,  respecting  this 
inscription,  .lablonski's  Pantheon  JEgyptiorum,  pars  i.  lib.  i.  c  3,  §  7,  and 
Mosheim's  notes  in  his  Latin  translation  of  Cudworth's  Intellectual  System, 
tom.  i.  p.  510,  setiq  ,  and  p.  522,  ed.  secund.  In  the  last  note,  Mosheim  gives 
the  correct  reading  of  another  remarkable  inscription  to  Isis,  of  similar  import, 


GENUINENESS  .OP  THE  GOSPELS.        281 

sonified  as  Universal  Nature.  It  is  to  be  observed,  that 
there  is  great  confusion  in  the  Egyptian  mythology,  the  same 
attributes  being  ascribed  to  different  divinities.  This  confu- 
sion probably  originated  from  the  fact  that  one  god  was  the 
peculiar  object  of  veneration  in  one  place,  and  another  in 
another,  so  that  the  highest  attributes  were  in  different  places 
ascribed  to  different  gods  ;  but  it  was  at  once  both  solved 
and  aggravated  by  the  mystical  theology,  which  taught  that 
they  were  all  only  manifestations  of  Universal  Nature,  — 
each  of  them  but  different  names  for  the  "  One  and  All,"  con- 
sidered under  different  relations. 

From  the  title  of  the  book  mentioned  by  Epiphanius,  that 
is,  from  its  being  called  a  "  gospel ; "  from  the  circumstance 
that  he  ascribes  its  use  to  an  heretical  sect;  and  from  the 
account  given  by  him  of  the  pantheistic  opinions  of  this  sect, 
—  we  may  infer  that  there  were  individuals  who  blended  con- 
ceptions borrowed  from  Christianity  with  the  Egyptian 
mythology  and  pantheism,  and  who  have  been  improperly 
represented  as  Christian  heretics.  Pseudo-Christians  of  like 
character  appear  to  have  existed  in  Egypt  at  an  early  period. 

found  at  Capua,  which  is  to  this  effect:  "Aerrius  Balbinus  dedicates  thee 
[that  is,  a  part  of  the  universe,  a  stone]  to  thyself,  who  art  one  and  all  things, 
the  goddess  Isis." 

It  may  here  be  observed,  that  Cudworth  should  be  read  with  the  notes  ot 
Mosheim;  unless,  indeed,  one  be  so  acquainted  with  the  philosophy  and  reli- 
gion of  the  ancients,  and  so  accustomed  to  reasoning,  and  to  estimating  the 
power  and  the  ambiguity  of  language,  as  to  be  able  to  correct  for  himself  his 
deceptive  representations.  He  deserves  the  highest  praise  for  integrity  as  a 
writer;  his  learning  was  superabundant,  and  his  intellect  vigorous  enough  to 
wield  it  to  his  purpose.  But  he  transfers  his  OAvn  religious  conceptions  to  the 
heathen  philosophers  and  religionists;  he  infuses  the  sentiments  of  a  modern 
theist  into  their  words;  and  he  confounds  together  the  doctrines  of  those  who 
preceded  Christianity,  and  of  those  who  were  powerfully  acted  upon  by  its 
influence.  He  tlius  spreads  a  luminous  cloud  over  the  ancient  heathen  the- 
ology, which  Mosheim  has  done  something  to  dispel.  Mosheim  has  likewise 
corrected  many  of  the  other  errors  of  fact,  or  mistakes  of  judgment,  which  run 
through  the  msiss  of  Cudworth's  learning;  and  has  added  much  to  illustrate 
the  topics  of  which  he  treats. 


282  EVIDENCES   OP   THE 

We  have  some  information,  such  as  it  is,  concerning  this 
subject  in  a  curious  letter  of  Hadrian,  preserved  by  the 
pagan  historian  Vopiscus*  The  emperor  says:  "Egypt, 
my  dear  Servian,  which  you  recommended  to  me,  I  have 
found  to  be  light,  vacillating,  and  borne  about  by  every 
rumor.  Those  who  worship  Serapis  are  Christians,  and 
those  who  call  themselves  Christian  bishops  are  devoted  to 
Serapis.  There  is  no  ruler  of  a  Jewish  synagogue,  no  Samar- 
itan, no  Christian  priest,  who  is  not  an  astrologer,  a  diviner, 
a  leader  of  a  sect.f  The  patriarch  t  himself,  when  he  comes 
to  Egypt,  is  forced  by  some  to  worship  Serapis,  and,  by  others, 
Christ."  The  emperor  may  not  have  had  the  best  opportu- 
nities for  obtaining  information  respecting  the  state  of  reli- 
gion among  the  Egyptians,  and  he  may  have  trusted  too  much 
to  the  jeers  of  his  courtiers  ;  but  notwithstanding  this,  and 
notwithstanding  the  levity  and  obvious  extravagance  of  his 
letter,  we  cannot  suppose  that  what  he  says  was  wholly  with- 
out foundation.  Some  state  of  things  existed  in  Egypt,  in 
the  first  half  of  the  second  century,  which  gave  occasion  to 
his  representation.  The  minds  of  many,  it  may  be  presumed, 
were  affected  by  Christianity,  who  had  but  a  very  imperfect 
knowledge  of  what  Christianity  was,  and  some  of  whom  com- 
bined it  very  grossly  with  their  former  errors. 

*  In  his  Life  of  Saturninus. 

t  "A  leader  of  a  sect."  The  Latin  word  is  aliptes,  which  means  an 
anointer,  one  Avho  anoints  those  who  have  bathed,  or  the  combatants  for  the 
arena.  But,  as  it  is  not  easy  to  perceive  any  appropriateness  in  this  mean- 
ing, I  have  ventured  to  render  the  word  in  a  sense  of  the  Greek  u2.Ei.7ZTTjg, 
which  is  used  metaphorically  to  signify  an  inciter  or  leader.  Perhaps  the 
emperor  wrote  the  word  in  Greek  letters.  But  after  all,  in  using  the  expres- 
sions which  he  does,  vinthematicus,  haruspex,  aliptes,  he  may  have  had  in 
mind  a  line  in  Juvenal's  description  of  a  needy  Greek  adventurer  (Sat.  iii. 
76), ''Grammaticus,  rhetor,  geometres,  pictor,  aliptes;"  and  may  thus,  in 
employing  the  word  nliptes,  have  intended  only  an  expression  of  contempt. 

t  The  patriarch  of  the  Jews  must  be  meant,  as  the  title  and  dignity  of 
patriarch  were  not  known  in  the  Christian  Church  till  long  after  the  time 
of  Hadrian. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        283 

It  seems  probable  that  the  book  mentioned  by  Epiphanius, 
the  Gospel  of  Eve,  containing  the  wisdom  which  Eve  learned 
from  the  Serpent,  had  its  origin  among  certain  reputed  here- 
tics, who,  according  to  Origen,  were  not  Christians.  They 
were  called  Ophians  or  Ophites  (we  might  render  the  name 
Serpentists),  from  the  Greek  word  ocpig,  a  serpent ;  because, 
as  Origen  says,  they  took  the  part  of  the  Serpent  who  seduced 
Eve,  and  represented  him  as  having  given  good  counsel  to 
our  first  parents.*  Irenceus,  in  one  of  the  last  chapters  of 
his  first  book,t  before  referred  to,  %  gives  an  account  of  the 
doctrines  of  a  certain  sect  not  named  by  him,  but  which,  as  is 
evident  from  a  comparison  with  Origen  and  other  subsequent 
writers,  was  that  of  the  Ophians.  Nothing  entitled  to  much 
credit  is  added  by  the  later  historians  of  the  heretics  to  the 
notices  of  Iren^us  and  Origen. 

Origen's  mention  of  them  is  incidental.  There  is  no  reason 
to  distrust  its  essential  correctness,  but  he  enters  into  no 
general  exposition  of  their  system.  The  account  of  Ireiiaeus 
is  confused  and  improbable,  and  appears  to  have  been  put 
together  from  imperfect  and  inconsistent  sources  of  informa- 
tion. The  statements  respecting  them  by  him  and  by  the 
other  writers  who  speak  of  them  as  heretics,  as  the  author 
of  the  Addition  to  Tertullian,  Epiphanius,  and  Theodoret, 
when  taken  in  connection,  present  a  system  of  absurdities  so 
palpably  irreconcilable,  that  no  sect  could  have  professed  it 
for  their  creed.  We  may  compare  it  to  a  machine  composed 
of  parts  of  various  others,  interfering  among  themselves  in 
such  a  manner,  that  evidently  it  could  never  have  been  in 
operation. 

We  can  therefore  admit,  with  any  confidence,  only  some 
very  general  conclusions  respecting  the  doctrines  of  the 
Ophians.  §     Whether  Christians  or  not,  they  appear  to  have 

*  Origen.  cont.  Celsum,  lib.  vi.  §  28,  0pp.  i.  pp.  651,  652. 

1   Cap.  30.  •  X  See  p.  276. 

§  See  the  account  of  Irenjeus,  as  before  referred  to,  lib.  i.  c.  30 ;  and  that 


284  EVIDENCES  OP  THE 

been  of  the  class  of  theosophic  Gnostics,  holding  very  dispar- 
aging opinions  of  the  Creator,  whom  they  regarded  as  the 
god  of  the  Jews.  They  believed  that  he,  with  six  other 
powers  produced  by  him,  informed  and  ruled  seven  spheres 
surrounding  the  earth  (those  of  the  sun  and  of  the  planets 
known  to  the  ancients) ;  and  that  through  these  spheres  the 
soul  had  to  pass  after  death  in  its  ascent  to  the  spiritual 
world.  The  way,  which  might  otherwise  be  barred  by  those 
powers,  was  open  to  such  as  were  initiated  in  their  mysteries, 
and  had  learned  the  proper  invocations  which  the  soul  must 
address  to  them  in  its  ascent,  to  obtain  its  passage.  Their 
doctrines  have  the  appearance  of  being  a  caricature  of  the 
doctrines  of  the  proper  Gnostics.  Maintaining  the  common 
opinion,  that  the  Creator  was  not  spiritual^  and  regarding  him 
as  being  opposed  to  the  manifestation  and  development  of  the 
spiritual  principle  in  man,  they  honored  the  Serpent  for  hav- 
ing thwarted  his  narrow  purposes,  withdrawn  our  first  parents 
from  their  allegiance  to  him,  induced  them  to  eat  the  fruit  of 
the  tree  of  knowledge,  and  thus  brought  them  the  knowledge 
of  "that  Power  which  is  over  all."  By  a  serpent,  the 
Phoenicians  and  Egyptians  are  said  to  have  symbolized  the 
Agathodaemon,  the  benevolent  power  in  nature  (the  god 
Cneph  of  the  Egyptians)  ;  *  and  the  Ophians,  perhaps,  re- 
garded the  Serpent  under  the  same  aspect.  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria once  incidentally  mentions  the  Ophians,  in  speaking  of 
the  origin  of  the  names  of  different  sects.  Some,  he  says, 
are  denominated  "  from  their  systems,  and  from  the  objects 
they  honor,  as  the  Cainists  and  the  Ophians."  t  The  Cainists 
or  Cainites  (whom  we  shall  have  occasion  to  notice  hereafter) 
are  represented  as  magnifying  Cain.  The  Ophians  honored 
the  Serpent. 

of  Origen  in  his  work,  Against  Celsus,  lib.  vi.  0pp.  i.  pp.  648-661;  lib.  viL 
pp.  722,  723;  lib.  iii.  p.  455. 

*  Kusebii  Prieparatio  Evangelica,  lib.  i.  c.  10. 

t  Stromat,  vii.  §  17,  p.  900. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         285 

Nothing  concerning  the  Ophians  would  seem  to  be  better 
established  than  this  fact.  But  it  is  not  stated  by  Irena^us. 
On  the  contrary,  according  to  his  account  of  their  system,  tlie 
Serpent  was  originally  vicious,  produced  by  the  Creator  in 
the  dregs  of  matter,  and  treacherous  to  him.  Afterwards, 
indeed,  he  appears  employed  by  Sophia  or  AVisdora,  the 
offspring  of  the  Unknown  God,  the  mother  but  adversary  of 
the  Creator,  for  the  purpose  of  seducing  our  first  parents  to 
eat  of  the  forbidden  fruit ;  by  which  they  obtained  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  Supreme  Divinity.  But  the  Creator,  who  was 
himself  desirous  of  being  regarded  as  the  highest  God,  being, 
in  consequence,  angry  with  the  Serpent,  expelled  him  from 
heaven,  where  he  had  before  dwelt,  and  cast  him  down  to 
earth.  After  this  fall,  he  is  made  to  correspond  to  the  ser- 
pent of  the  Apocalypse,  the  Devil ;  and  is  represented  as 
producing  six  other  evil  powers  (answering  to  the  six  subor- 
dinate powers  of  the  Creator),  and  as  being,  together  with 
them,  full  of  malice  equally  toward  men  and  their  Maker. 

But  we  have  good  reason  to  believe,  that  Irenaeus,  our 
earliest  and  one  of  our  two  principal  authorities,  has  fallen 
into  great  errors  respecting  the  system  of  the  Ophians,  when 
we  find  him  saying,  notwithstanding  what  has  been  stated, 
that  they  affirmed  the  Serpent  to  be  "  the  Nous  (Intellect) 
himself;"*  for  this  was  the  name  by  which  theosophic 
Gnostics  designated  their  first  emanation  from  the  Su- 
preme Being.  Elsewhere  he  says,  that  some  of  the  Ophians 
maintained  that  Wisdom  herself  became  the  Serpent-t 
And,  in  connection  with  this,  we  cannot  but  be  struck 
with  the  intrinsic  improbability  of  the  scheme  that  he  as- 
cribes to  the  sect ;  according  to  which,  the  Devil  was  em- 
ployed for  the  purpose  of  communicating  spiritual  wisdom 
and  a  knowledge  of  the  true  God  to  our  first  parents.    These, 


*  Lib.  i.  c.  30,  §  5,  p.  110. 
t  Ibid.,  §  15,  p.  112. 


286  EVIDENCES  OP   THE 

however,  are  but  some  of  the  inconsistencies  that  present 
themselves  in  the  system  that  he  has  depicted. 

That  the  Ophians  held  the  Serpent  in  honor  appears  from 
the  testimony  of  Clement  and  Origen,  the  indications  fur- 
nished by  Irenceus  himself,  the  reports  of  later  writers,  and 
the  evidence  of  their  distinguishing  name.  Epiphanius  says, 
tliat  they  glorified  the  Serpent  as  God,  or  as  a  god,  and 
affirmed  him  to  be  Christ ;  *  though,  at  the  same  time,  with 
the  grossest  inconsistency,  of  which  he  seems  to  have  had 
some  indistinct  consciousness,  he  gives  a  mutilated  variation 
of  the  account  of  Irenaeus  by  which  the  Serpent  is  identified 
with  the  Devil.f  The  same  inconsistency  exists  in  the 
relation  of  the  author  of  the  Addition  to  Tertullian,  who  fol- 
lows Irenseus  in  part,  but  affirms  that  the  Ophians  placed  the 
Serpent  above  Christ,  t  And  Theodoret,  who,  I  think,  was 
embarrassed  by  the  contradictions  of  his  predecessors,  says, 
that  some  of  the  Ophians  worshipped  the  Serpent.  § 

Modern  writers  have,  in  consequence,  conjectured,  either 
that  there  were  two  sorts  of  Ophians,  or  that  there  were  two 
Serpents  in  their  system,  one  celestial  and  the  other  terres- 
trial. But  it  would  have  been  strange,  if  two  classes  of 
persons,  one  honoring  the  Serpent  as  a  god,  and  the  other 
regarding  him  as  the  Devil,  had  both  been  comprehended 
under  the  same  name;  and  as  for  the  conjecture  of  two 
Serpents,  it  is  certain  that  Irenaeus,  and  the  other  ancient 
writers  who  mention  the  Ophians,  speak  only  of  one.  A 
general  solution  of  this  and  of  other  difficulties  concerning 
them  is  to  be  found  in  the  obscurity  of  the  sect,  in  the  conse- 
quent ignorance  and  inaccuracy  of  the  reporters  of  their  doc- 
trines, and  in  the  great  probability  that  these  doctrines  were 
little  settled  among  themselves. 

*  Indie,  in  torn,  iii.,  lib.  i.  p.  229.  Haeres.,  xxxvii.  §§  1,  2,  pp.  268,  269, 
§  5,  pp.  271,  272. 

t  Ibid  ,  §§  4,  5,  pp.  271,  272.      J  Apud  Tertullian.,  0pp.  §  47,  p.  220. 
§  Haeret.  Fab.,  lib.  i.  n.  14,  p.  205. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        287 

Our  purpose  does  not  require  us  to  enter  furtlicr  into 
the  detail  of  their  system,  and  to  force  our  way  through  the 
crude  accounts  of  ancient,  and  the  hypotheses  of  modern 
writers.  The  labor  would  in  any  case  be  unprofitable.  It 
may  be  the  duty  of  one  exploring  these  difficult  subjects  to 
spend  his  own  time  in  pursuing  obscure  paths,  tangled  with 
briers,  till  he  is  satisfied  that  they  lead  to  nothing  ;  but  it  can 
seldom  be  worth  while  to  conduct  others  over  the  same 
ground,  that  they  may  enjoy  a  like  gratification. 

The  accounts  of  the  Ophians  belong,  for  the  most  part,  to 
the  fabulous  history  of  the  Gnostics.  Nor  should  I  have  dwelt 
even  so  long  upon  this  obscure  and  insignificant  sect  (for  such 
we  shall  perceive  it  to  have  been),  were  it  not  for  its  having 
been  magnified  into  importance  by  the  discussions  concerning 
it  in  modern  times,  and,  still  more,  if  it  were  not  for  the  rela- 
tion in  which  Origen  says  the  Ophians  stood  to  Christianity. 

He  speaks  of  them  in  his  work  against  Celsus.  Celsus 
had  charged  Christians  with  calling  the  Creator  "  an  accursed 
god,"  *  upon  the  ground,  as  appears,  that  this  was  done  by 
the  Ophians  ;  for  it  was  his  custom  to  accuse  Christians  of 
the  extravagances  and  errors  of  heretical  and  pseudo-Chris- 
tian sects.  But  Origen  says,  in  reply,  that  the  Ophians  were 
so  far  from  being  Christians,  that  they  spoke  of  Jesus  not  less 
reproachfully  than  did  Celsus  himself,  that  they  admitted  no 
one  into  their  fellowship  without  pronouncing  curses  against 
him,  and  that  they  were  unwilling  to  hear  his  name  even  as 
that  of  a  wise  and  virtuous  man-t  Origen  calls  them  a  very 
obscure  sect,  J  and  speaks  of  their  number  as  very  small ; 
there  being,  he  says,  noJEie  or  very  few  remaining.  §  Celsus 
had  brought  forward  a  symbolical  diagram,  having  reference 
to  the  ascent  of  the  soul  through  the  seven  spheres  of  tiie 
Creator  and  his  angels  ;  and  Origen  is  principally  occupied 
by  an  account  of  this  diagram,  and  the  prayers  inscribed  upon 

*  Contra  Gels.,  lib.  vi.  §  28;  0pp.  i.  651.  t  Ibid.,  p.  652. 

J  Ibid.,  §  24,  p.  648.  §  Ibid.,  §  26,  p.  650. 


288  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

it.  It  bore  names  given  to  the  seven  Powers,  barbarous  to 
Grecian  ears,  borrowed  partly  from  the  Old  Testament,  and 
partly,  according  to  Origen,  from  the  art  of  magic*  But  he 
says,  that  though  he  had  travelled  much,  and  everywhere 
sought  the  acquaintance  of  men  professing  to  know  any  thing, 
yet  he  had  never  met  with  any  one  who  professed  to  explain 
it.t 

In  a  passage  antecedent  to  what  I  have  quoted,  Origen 
says  :  "  Celsus  seems  to  me  to  have  become  acquainted  with 
some  sects  that  have  no  fellowship  with  us  even  in  the  name 
of  Jesus.  Thus,  perhaps,  he  has  heard  of  the  Ophians  or  the 
Cainites,  or  of  some  others,  holding  doctrines  wholly  foreign 
from  those  of  Jesus."  J 

Orioren's  account  of  the  insiOTificance  of  the  sect  of  the 
Ophians  is  confirmed,  if  it  need  confirmation,  by  the  facts, 
that  they  are  not  named  by  Irenceus,  nor  are  their  peculiar 
doctrines  referred  to  in  his  long  confutation  of  different  here- 
sies, which  forms  the  greater  part  of  his  work ;  that  they  are 
but  once  incidentally  mentioned,  as  we  have  seen,  by  Clement 
of  Alexandria ;  and  that  they  are  not  noticed  at  all  by  Ter- 
tuUian.  Their  want  of  notoriety  appears  likewise  from  the 
uncertainty  respecting  their  name.  None  is  given  them  by 
Irenaeus.  By  Clement  and  Origen  they  are  called  Ophians 
(.Vcptavoi)  ;  by  Epiphanius,  and  some  Latin  writers  who 
mention  them,  Ophites  {'Ocpijai).  Theodoret  speaks  of 
them  as  "Sethians,  or  Ophians,  or  Ophites ;"§  but  Epi- 
phanius and  others  make  quite  a  distinct  sect  of  the  Seth- 
ians, II  and  the  probability  is,  that  no  proper  sect  ever 
existed  under  this  name.  H     The  obscurity  of  the  Ophians  is 

*  Cont.  Cels.,  lib.  vi.  §  32,  pp.  656,  657.  t  Ibid  ,  §  24,  p.  648. 

$  Ibid.,  lib.  iii.  §  13,  p.  455.  §  Ilaeret  Fab.,  lib.  i.  n.  14,  p.  204. 

II  They  are  the  thirty-ninth  Heresy  of  Epiphanius;  0pp.  i.  284. 

^  The  Sethians  have  been  mentioned  before  (p.  174,  note).  I  conceive, 
that  "  Sethians  "  was,  as  there  explained,  only  a  name  by  which  some  of  the 
Gnostics  denoted  the  spiritual ;  Seth  being  regarded  as  their  progenitor  or 
prototype. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         289 

made  still  more  evident  by  the  very  confused  and  inconsistent 
accounts  of  their  doctrines,  —  accounts  such  as  would  not  have 
been  given  of  those  of  any  well-known  sect. 

There  is,  as  we  have  seen,  a  disagreement  between  Origen 
on  the  one  side,  and  Irenaeus  and  subsequent  writers  on  the 
other,  concerning  the  relation  in  wliich  the  Oi)hians  stood  to 
Christianity.  Irenjeus  represents  them  as  Christian  heretics  ; 
Origen,  as  an  antichristian  sect.  The  difference  would  have 
been  of  no  account,  if  Origen  had  merely  said  that  they  were 
not  Christians.  According  to  Irena^us,  they  held  that  their 
doctrines  were  not  openly  taught  by  Christ,  but  that  Jesus, 
whom  they  distinguished  from  Christ,  remaining  on  earth 
eighteen  months  after  his  resurrection,  then  communicated 
them  to  a  few  of  his  disciples,  who  had  capacity  for  such 
great  mysteries.*  Thus  founding  a  system  of  their  own 
invention  on  a  supposititious  basis,  they  might  well  be  consid- 
ered as  not  Christians.  But  Origen  says,  that  they  pro- 
nounced curses  against  Jesus.  With  so  slight  a  hold  as  they 
had  upon  Christianity,  and  probably  with  no  very  fixed  belief, 
they  may  have  j)assed  through  a  natural  process  of  deteriora- 
tion during  the  interval  between  Irenteus  and  Origen.  There 
is  nothing  improbable  in  the  supposition,  that  a  vain  and 
foolish  sect  should  first  claim  to  be  a  sort  of  transcendental 
Christians,  and  then,  finding  themselves  contemned  by  the 
great  body  of  believers,  and  perceiving  that  their  specula- 
tions were  only  embarrassed  by  their  pretended  faith,  should 
have  determined  to  rely  on  their  own  spiritual  wisdom  alone, 
and  should  have  openly  professed  their  rejection  of  Christian- 
ity with  something  of  the  spleen  of  apostates. 

This  is  an  obvious  solution  of  the  disagreement  between 
Origen  and  Irenaeus.  But  perhaps  we  are  to  look  still  far- 
ther for  an  explanation  of  it.  With  more  or  less  analogy  to 
some  later  sects,  the  theosophic  Gnostics  believed  that  they 


Cont.  Hseres.,  lib.  i.  c.  30,  §  14,  p.  112. 
10 


290  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

were  guided  to  the  truth  by  the  divine  light  within,  that 
spiritual  nature  which  they  considered  as  peculiar  to  them- 
selves. Their  systems  consequently  were  the  truth.  They 
were  derived  from  a  higher  source  than  reasoning,  and  were 
not  amenable  to  it.  They  could  be  judged  of  only  by  those 
whose  spiritual  apprehensions  were  conformed  to  their  recep- 
tion. These  principles,  it  is  true,  were  not  consistently  acted 
upon.  The  Gnostics  appear  to  have  reasoned  as  well  as 
they  were  able ;  and,  as  we  shall  hereafter  see,  were  even 
reputed  in  their  day  subtile  reasoners  from  the  Scriptures. 
The  claim  of  a  hisfher  internal  source  of  knowledge,  of  the 
nature  and  operations  of  which  reason  is  not  the  judge,  is 
commonly  resorted  to  only  when  all  other  modes  of  proof 
fail.  Men  do  not  contemn  the  aid  of  reason  before  it  is 
withdrawn.  But  it  was  the  tendency  of  the  self-confident 
state  of  mind  which  characterized  the  Gnostics  to  lead  them 
to  reject  instruction  from  without.  A  true  Gnostic  was  his 
own  teacher ;  and,  though  he  found  his  system  in  the  Gospel, 
yet  his  own  mind  was  the  book  in  which  it  was  first  read. 
Christianity  was  likely  thus  to  become,  in  his  view,  an  ab- 
straction, the  name  for  a  body  of  opinions  and  imaginations, 
which  he  had  embraced  because  he  knew  them  to  be  true, 
independently  of  wdiat  others  regarded  as  evidence  of  the 
divine  authority  of  our  religion. 

Together  with  this,  the  theosophic  Gnostics  generally 
distinguished  between  the  being  who  appeared  as  a  man, 
Jesus,  the  son  of  the  Creator,  and  the  celestial  being,  Christ, 
or  the  Saviour,  or  the  spiritual  Jesus,  who,  at  the  baptism  of 
the  former,  descended  into  him  from  the  Pleroma.*  To  use 
the  words  of  Tertullian,  they  "  made  Christ  and  Jesus  different 
beings.  The  one  had  escaped  from  the  midst  of  multitudes, 
the  other  was  apprehended :   the  one  in  the  solitude  of  a 


♦  Ireuoeus,  lib.  i.  c.  7,  §  2,  pp.  32,  38;  lib.  Hi.  c.  10,  §  4,  p.  186,  c.  11,  §§  1, 
S,  pp.  188,  189:  conf.  lib.  i.  c.  2,  §  6,  pp.  12.  13. 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE   GOSPELS.  291 

moimtam,  overshadowed  by  a  cloud,  had  been  resplendent 
before  three  witnesses;  the  other,  with  no  mark  of  distinction, 
had  held  conimon  intercourse  with  men :  the  one  was  mar^- 
nanimous,  but  the  other  trembling:  and,  at  last,  Jesus  had 
been  crucified,  and  Christ  had  risen."*  It  was  the  Christ  of 
the  Pleroma  whom  they  regarded  as  the  teacher  of  divine 
truths ;  and  those  truths  which  were  most  mysterious  and 
transcendent  they  conceived  him  to  have  tauglit  in  secret 
meanings  and  enigmas,  and  in  mere  intimations  and  allusions, 
recorded  in  the  Gospels,  and  in  private,  unrecorded  discourses 
addressed  only  to  those  capable  of  comprehending  them. 
But  the  system  of  the  Ophians  appears  throughout  as  a 
coarse  exaggeration  of  the  doctrines  of  the  theosophic  Gnos- 
tics. In  common  with  those  Gnostics,  they  regarded  Jesus 
as  the  son  of  the  Creator.  But  of  the  Creator  they  gave  the 
most  disparaging  representations,  and  are  said  to  have  pro- 
nounced him  accursed.  It  is  not,  then,  difficult  to  believe 
that  they  extended  like  enmity  to  his  son ;  nor  is  there  any 
thing  very  improbable  in  supposing,  that  they  might  have 
pretended  to  be,  in  some  sort,  followers  of  Christ,  while  they 
rejected  Jesus  as  a  divine  teacher,  and  even  proceeded  to 
the  extravagance,  mentioned  by  Origen,  of  pronouncing 
curses  on  his  name. 

From  what  has  been  said,  it  may  appear  that  sects  and 
individuals  who  are  not  to  be  considered  as  Christians  have 
been  erroneously  reckoned  among  the  Gnostics.  Nor  is 
their  existence  difficult  to  be  accounted  for.  Christianity 
soon  became  an  object  of  universal  attention.  It  was  a  new 
phenomenon  in  the  intellectual  world.  A  power  unknown 
before  was  in  action,  and  spreading  its  influence  far  beyond 
the  sphere  to  which  it  might  seem  to  be  confined.  Our 
religion  essentially  affected  the  heathen  philosophy  contem- 


*  De  Carne  Christi,  c.  24,  p.  326. 


292  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

porary  with  it,  and  introduced  into  it  conceptions  such  as  had 
not  been  previously  entertained.  The  doctrines  of  our  faith 
were  undoubtedly  more  or  less  known  to  many  who  had 
not  studied  them  in  the  Gospels,  nor  were  acquainted  with 
its  evidences  as  a  revelation  from  God.  Though  not  received 
by  such  as  of  divine  authority,  and  but  imperfectly  under- 
stood, they  gave  a  new  impulse  to  thought.  Men's  minds 
were  thrown  into  a  state  of  eifervescence,  new  affinities 
operated,  and  new  combinations  of  opinion  were  formed. 
There  were,  doubtless,  those  whose  vanity  prompted  them 
to  profess  an  acquaintance  with  the  new  barbaric  philosophy, 
as  they  deemed  it,  and  to  represent  themselves  as  having 
exercised  a  critical  and  discriminating  judgment  upon  it,  and 
as  having  discovered  in  it  certain  important  views,  and  certain 
truths  not  before  developed.  In  some  of  those  affected  by 
our  religion,  their  imperfect  and  heartless  knowledge  of  it 
would  be  rather  destructive  than  renovating,  breaking  down 
all  barriers  of  thought,  and  opening  the  way  for  wild  specula- 
tions. Hence,  as  we  may  easily  believe,  new  systems  of 
opinion  sprung  up,  not  Christian,  but  deriving  some  charac- 
teristic peculiarities  from  Christianity,  —  the  systems  held  by 
those  whom  we  have  called  pseudo-Christians. 

But  how,  it  may  be  asked,  can^e  the  pseudo-Christians  to 
be  confounded  with  Christian  heretics  ?  Various  considera- 
tions afford  an  answer  to  this  question.  As  I  have  remarked, 
no  well-defined  boundary  was  apparent  between  the  two 
classes.  They  passed  insensibly  into  each  other.  In  the 
reliance  of  the  Gnostics  upon  the  revelations  of  their  own 
spiritual  nature,  we  may  perceive  a  tendency  to  infidelity. 
It  was  an  error  which  would  lead  many  to  undervalue,  and 
some  to  reject,  the  authority  of  Christ.  The  pseudo-Chris- 
tians were  reckoned  among  the  Gnostics,  because  many  of 
them  held  Gnostic  opinions  ;  and  such  opinions  were  attributed 
even  to  those,  the  Carpocratians,  by  whom  they  were  not 


GENUINENESS   OP   THE   GOSPELS.  293 

held.  Another  cause  of  this  confusion  may  be  found  in  the 
fact,  that  the  Heathens  would  naturally  blend  together  in  one 
general  class  all  those  who,  breaking  away  from  the  old  forms 
of  philosophy,  were  evidently  involved  in  the  new  movement 
in  the  intellectual  world  produced  by  Christianity.  The  ene- 
mies of  our  religion  charged  upon  Christians  what  might  be 
truly  or  falsely  said  of  such  sectaries  as  we  have  been  consid- 
ering. And,  on  the  other  hand,  the  catholic  Christians, 
regarding  the  Gnostics  as  not  true  believers,  as  not  belonging 
to  the  Christian  body,  were  not  careful  to  discriminate  be- 
tween them,  and  those  who,  though  corresponding  with  them 
in  many  respects,  had  yet  no  title  to  the  Christian  name. 
Hence  it  was,  we  may  conceive,  that  the  Gnostics  were 
classed  with  individuals  whose  doctrines  and  whose  lives 
many  of  them  regarded  with  as  strong  disapprobation  as  did 
the  catholic  Christians. 

In  the  preceding  chapters,  we  have  taken  a  general  view  of 
the  Gnostics,  and  of  their  relation  to  the  catholic  Christians. 
"We  have  traced  their  external  history,  and  attended  to  the 
respective  characters  of  those  writers  from  whom  our  knowl- 
edge of  them  is  derived.  We  have  considered  their  morals, 
—  an  essential  point  in  determining  how  far  they  may  be 
regarded  as  sincere  though  erroneous  believers ;  and  we  have 
discriminated  them  from  sectaries  with  whom  they  have  been 
confounded,  who,  though  borrowing  some  conceptions  from 
Christianity,  were  not  Christians. 

It  has  been  suggested,  likewise,  that  the  occasion  of  Gnos- 
ticism was  to  be  found  in  the  aversion  of  the  Gentiles  to 
Judaism,  in  the  form  in  which  it  was  presented  to  their 
minds;  and  to  this  subject  we  will  next  attend. 


CHAPTER   VI. 

ON   GNOSTICISM,    CONSIDERED    AS    A   SEPARATION    OP    JUDA- 
ISM  FROM    CHRISTIANITY. 

"  Every  heretic,  as  far  as  I  know,"  says  Tertullian,  "  ridi- 
cules the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament.'"*  —  "  To  separate  the 
Law  from  the  Gospel,"  he  observes  in  another  place,  "  is 
the  special  and  principal  object  of  Marcion."t  —  "The  labor 
of  the  heretics,"  he  says,  "  is  not  in  building  up  an  edifice  of 
their  own,  but  in  destroying  the  truth.  They  undermine  ours 
to  erect  their  own.  Take  away  from  them  the  Law  of  Moses, 
and  the  Prophets,  and  the  Creator  God,  and  they  will  have 
nothing  to  urge  against  us."  $  — "  It  is  the  case  with  all  those," 
says  Irenseus,  "  who  hold  pernicious  doctrines,  that,  being  influ- 
enced by  the  opinion  that  the  Law  of  Moses  is  different  from, 
and  contrary  to,  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel,  they  have  not 
turned  to  consider  the  causes  of  the  difference  between  the 
two  Testaments."  § 

Origen,  in  maintaining  the  necessity  of  interpreting  the 
Scriptures  allegorical ly,  says,  that  many  have  fallen  into 
great  errors  from  not  understanding  them  in  their  spiritual 
sense.  He  first  instances  the  unbelieving  Jews,  who,  he  says, 
rejected   the   Messiah   in   consequence   of   interpreting    the 

*  Advers  Marcion.,  lib.  v.  c.  5,  p.  467.        f  Ibid.,  lib.  i.  c.  19,  p.  374. 
J  De  Prajscriptione  Hcereticoi-um,  c.  42,  p.  217. 
§  Cont.  Haeres.,  lib.  iii.  c.  12,  §  12,  p.  198. 


GENUINENESS  OP  THE  GOSPELS.        295 

prophecies    concerning    him    literally.     He    then    proceeds 
thus :  — 

**The  heretics,  too,  when  they  read,  A  Jire  has  blazed  from  my 
wrath  ;*  —  /  am  a  jealous  God,  requiting  the  sins  of  fathers  upon 
children  to  the  third  and  fourth  generation ;  f  —  /  rej?ent  that  I 
have  anointed  Saul  to  be  king  ;%  —  /  am  the  God  ivho  makes  peace 
and  creates  evil ;  §  and,  in  another  place.  There  is  no  evil  in  a  city 
which  the  Lord  hath  not  wrought ;  \\  and  yet  further,  Evil  came 
down  from  the  Lord  to  the  gates  of  Jerusalem;^  and.  An  evil 
spirit  from  the  Jjord  tormented  Saul,** — when  they  read  these  and 
ten  thousand  other  similar  passages,  they  do  not  indeed  venture 
to  reject  the  divine  origin  of  the  Scriptures  [the  Jewish  Scrip- 
tures] ,  but  they  believe  them  to  have  proceeded  from  the  Creator 
whom  the  Jews  worship.  Regarding  him,  in  eonsequence,  as 
imperfect,  and  not  good,  they  think  that  the  Saviour  came  to  make 
known  the  more  perfect  God,  who,  they  affirm,  is  not  the  Creator. 
Holding  various  opinions  concerning  this  subject,  and  having  de- 
serted the  Creator,  who  is  the  unoriginated  only  God,  they  have 
given  themselves  up  to  their  own  fabrications ;  and  have  formed 
mythological  systems,  according  to  which  they  explain  the  pro- 
duction of  things  visible,  and  of  other  things,  invisible,  the  exis- 
tence of  which  they  have  ima  ined.  But  indeed,"  continues 
Origen,  **the  more  simple  of  those  who  boast  that  they  belong 
to  the  Church,  who  regard  none  as  superior  to  the  Creator,  and 
in  this  do  well,  have  yet  such  conceptions  of  him  as  are  not  to  be 
entertained  of  the  most  cruel  and  most  unjust  of  men,"  —  in  con- 
sequence, as  he  immediately  remarks,  of  their  understanding  the 
Jewish  Scriptures,  not  "  according  to  their  spiritual  sense,  but 
according  to  the  naked  letter."  f  f 

"The  most  ungodly  and  irreligious  among  the  heretics,"  says 
Origen,  in  his  Commentary  on  Leviticus,  "not  understanding 
the  difference  between  visible  Judaism  and  intelligible  Judaism,  — 
that  is,  between  Judaism  in  its  outAvard  form  and  Judaism  in  its 


*  Jer.  XV.  14.  t  Exod.  xx.  5.  J  1  Sam.  xv.  11. 

§  Isa.  xlv.  7.  II  Amos  iii.  6,  so  quoted  by  Origen. 

t  Mieah  i.  12.  **  1  Sam  xvi  14. 

tt  De  Principiis,  lib.  iv.  §  8;  0pp.  i.  164,  seqq. 


296  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

hidden  purport,  — have  at  once  separated  themselves  from  Judaism, 
and  from  the  God  who  gave  these  Scriptures  and  the  whole  Law, 
and  have  fabricated  for  themselves  another  God  beside  him  who 
gave  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  and  made  heaven  and  earth."* 

Of  the  opinions  of  Ptolemy,  the  Valentinian,  respecting 
the  Jewish  Law,  we  have  a  detailed  account  in  his  Letter  to 
Flora,  which  he  seems  to  have  intended  as  a  sort  of  introduc- 
tion to  Gnosticism,  —  as  an  exposition  and  defence  of  its 
fundamental  doctrine.  He  begins  by  stating,  that  some 
believe  the  Law  to  have  been  ordained  by  God  the  Father, 
and  others  by  the  Adversary,  Satan.  Both  opinions  he 
rejects  as  altogether  erroneous.  It  could  not  have  proceeded 
from  the  Perfect  God  and  Father,  because  it  is'  imperfect, 
and  contains  commands  unsuitable  to  the  nature  and  will  of 
such  a  God ;  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  can  the  Law,  which 
forbids  iniquity,  be  ascribed  to  the  Evil  Being.  His  own 
opinion,  he  conceives,  may  be  proved  by  the  words  of  Christ, 
to  which  alone,  he  says,  we  may  safely  trust  in  investigating 
the  subject.  It  is,  that  the  Law  contained  in  the  Pentateuch 
does  not  proceed  from  a  single  lawgiver,  consequently  not 
from  the  god  of  the  Jews  alone.  A  part  of  it  is  to  be 
ascribed  to  him ;  another  part  was  given  by  Moses  on  his 
own  authority  ;  and  a  third  portion  consists  of  laws  inter- 
polated by  the  elders  of  the  people.  In  proof  that  some 
laws  proceeded  from  Moses  alone,  he  quotes  the  words  of 
Christ,  —  "  Moses,  on  account  of  the  hardness  of  your  hearts, 
permitted  you  to  put  away  your  wives  ;  but  in  the  beginning 
it  was  not  so,  for  God  established  the  connection ;  and  what 
the  Lord  has  joined  together,  let  no  man  put  asunder''  f  To 
the  laws  interpolated  by  the  elders,  he  regards  Christ  as 
referring,  when  he  taught  the  Jews  that  they  had  set  aside 
the  Law  of  God  by  the  traditions  of  their  elders.  %     Of  that 

*  Philocalia,  c.  1,  adjinem;  0pp.  ii.  192. 

t  Matt.  xix.  i-S.  J  Mark  vii.  3-9. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        297 

portion  of  the  Law  which  he  ascribes  to  the  god  of  the 
Jews,  some  of  the  precepts,  according  to  him,  are  wliolly 
unmixed  with  evih  They  constitute  the  Law,  properly  so 
called,  —  that  Law  which  the  Saviour  came  not  to  destroy,  hut 
to  perfect.  They  are  those  of  the  Decalogue.*  Other  pre- 
cepts have  a  mixture  of  something  bad  aud  wrong,  and  were 
abrogated  by  the  Saviour.  Su^h,  for  instance,  is  the  law 
respecting  retaliation,  "  An  eye  for  au  eye,  and  a  tooth  for  a 
tooth."  A  third  class,  consisting  of  the  ceremonial  law, 
relates  to  things  typical  of  those  to  come,  more  spiritual  and 
excellent,  in  the  Christian  dispensation.  Why  the  laws  of 
the  god  of  the  Jews  should  contain  types  of  Christianity, 
Ptolemy  does  not  explain  in  this  Letter.  He  probably  ac- 
counted for  it  through  a  secret  influence  from  the  Pleroma, 
under  which,  as  we  shall  hereafter  see,  the  Creator  was  rep- 
resented by  the  Valentinians  as  acting. 

Ptolemy  next  proceeds  to  answer  the  inquiry,  Who  was 
that  god  who  gave  the  Law  ?  He  was  not,  he  repeats,  the 
Perfect  God,  nor  was  he  Satan ;  but  he  was,  the  Fashioner 
and  Maker  of  this  World,  and  of  the  beings  contained  in  it, 
not  good  (that  is,  not  possessing  unmingled  goodness),  like 
the  Supreme  God,  nor  evil  and  wicked  like  Satan  ;  but  stand- 
ing in  the  midst  between  them,  one  who  may  properly,  be 
called  Just,  as  one  who  rewards  and  punishes  according  to 
his  measure  of  goodness  ;  not  unoriginated,  like  the  Supreme 
God,  but  being  an  image  of  him. 

In  this  account  of  his  opinions,  Ptolemy  probably  gives  as 

*  There  is  here,  apparently,  an  example  of  that  inconsistency  of  which 
we  find  so  much  in  the  theological  speculations  of  tlie  ancients.  Christ, 
according  to  Ptolemy,  retained  and  perfected  "the  ten  commandments." 
But  Ptolemy  believed  tliese  to  have  been  given,  not  by  the  Supreme  Ueing, 
but  by  the  god  of  the  Jews.  Now  the  first  of  them  is,  "  Thou  shalt  have  no 
other  God  beside  me;"  a  command  which,  according  to  his  system,  it  is 
impossible  that  Christ  should  have  confirmed,  since  Ptolemy  regarded  him 
as  having  come  to  reveal  another  and  far  greater  God  than  the  god  of  the 
Jews. 


298  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

favorable  a  view  as  was  entertained  by  any  Gnostic  of  the 
Jewish  Law,  and  of  the  god  of  the  Jews. 

It  is  to  be  observed,  that  the  Gnostics  did  not  reject  the 
Pentateuch,  and  the  other  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  as 
unworthy  of  credit.  On  the  contrary,  their  system  was 
founded  on  the  supposition,  that  those  books  contained  a 
correct  account  of  the  Jewi^  dispensation,  and  of  the  events 
connected  with  it.  Difficulties  and  objections  then  pressed 
upon  them.  There  was  much  that  offended  their  reason, 
their  moral  sentiments,  and  their  prejudices  as  Gentiles. 
Receiving  the  history  as  true,  and  understanding  it  in  its 
obvious  sense,  they  could  not  believe  that  the  god  of*  the 
Jews  was  the  same  being  as  the  God  of  Christians.  Thus 
they  were  led  to  separate  the  Law  from  the  Gospel,  and  to 
introduce  the  agency  of  another  being,  wholly  distinct  from 
the  Supreme  God,  in  the  government  of  the  world.  The 
corner-stone  of  Gnosticism  was  thus  laid. 

But  in  regarding  many  of  the  representations  given  of 
God  in  the  Old  Testament  as  unworthy  .of  the  Supreme 
Being,  the  Gnostics  did  not  stand  alone.  The  more  intelli- 
gent of  the  catholic  Christians,  contemporary  with  them, 
strongly  felt  and  expressed  these  and  other  objections  to 
which  the  Old  Testament  was,  in  their  view,  exposed,  if 
understood  in  its  obvious  sense.  This  feeling  is  shown  in 
the  quotations  before  given  from  Origen,  and  the  subject  well 
deserves  further  consideration ;  for  there  are  few  of  more 
importance  in  the  history  of  Christian  opinions. 

There  is  a  work  called  the  "  Clementine  Homilies,"  or  the 
"  Clementines,"  the  author  of  which  is  unknown.  The  time 
of  its  composition  is  likewise  uncertain  ;  but,  judging  from 
the  fact,  that,  though  its  contents  are  such  as  would  have 
been  likely  to  attract  the  attention  of  Irenaeus,  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  and  Tertullian,  it  is  yet  not  noticed  by  any  one 


GENUINENESS   OP   THE   GOSPELS.  290 

of  them,  and,  from  other  considerations,  it  probably  was  not 
written  before,  or  much  before,  the  end  of  tlie  second  century. 
It  is  remarkable  as  an  ancient  work  of  fiction,  resenibliiij^'  a 
modern  romance.  It  is  written  in  the  form  of  an  autobio- 
graphy of  an  individual  bearing  the  name  of  Clement.  Cle- 
ment represents  himself  as  having  been  converted  to  Chris- 
tianity by  the  preaching  of  Barnabas  and  Peter,  and  as 
having  been  present  at  many  of  the  discourses  of  the  latter, 
particularly  with  Simon  Magus,  who  was  represented  by  the 
writers  against  the  Gnostics  as  the  founder  of  their  heresy. 
There  is  much  relating  to  the  objections  to  the  god  of  the 
Jews  (that  is,  in  the  view  of  the  writer,  to  the  Supreme 
God),  which  the  Gnostics  derived  from  the  Old  Testament; 
and  of  these  objections  the  author,  under  the  person  of  Peter, 
presents  a  bold  solution.  He  gives  up  at  once  to  reprobation 
the  passages  on  which  they  were  founded,  maintaining  that 
they  are  false  representations  of  God.  He  represents  them 
as  existing  in  the  Jewish  Scriptures,  through  the  permitted 
agency  of  Satan,  to  serve  as  a  test  for  distinguishing  between 
those  who  are,  and  those  who  are  not,  willing  to  believe  evil 
concerning  God.*  According  to  him,  what  in  those  Scriptures 
is  accordant  with  right  conceptions  of  God  is  to  be  received 
as  true,  and  what  is  not  so  is  to  be  rejected  as  false.f 

But  in  his  view  of  the  general  character  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, the  author  of  the  Homilies  stood  apart  from  the  other 
Christian  writers  of  the  second  and  third  centuries.  They 
received  its  books  from  the  Jews,  and  received  them  with 
the  Jewish  notions  of  their  divine  authority,  and  were  there- 
fore obliged  to  resort  to  modes  different  from  those  of  the 
Gnostics,  or  the  author  of  the  Clementine  Homilies,  for  solv- 
ing the  difficulties  which  they  equally  felt. 

*  Homil.  ii.  §§  88-52;  Homil.  iii.  §  5. 

t  Homil.  ii.  §  40,  seqq. ;  Homil.  iii.  §  42,  seqq. 


300  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

In  the  solution  that  I  shall  first  mention,  as  resorted  to  by 
the  catholic  Christians,  will  be  perceived  that  remarkable 
resemblance,  without  coincidence,  which  often  appears  be- 
tween their  doctrines  and  those  of  the  Gnostics.  In  com- 
paring them  together,  we  see  sometimes,  as  in  the  present ' 
case,  a  striking  likeness  fashioned  out  of  mateiials  essentially 
different,  while  in  other  cases  the  material  is  the  same,  but 
moulded  into  a  different  form.  In  the  solution  of  which  I 
now  speak,  the  Logos  of  the  catholic  Christians  takes  the 
l^lace  of  the  Creator  of  the  Gnostics  as  the  god  of  the  Jews ; 
those  representations  of  the  Divinity  in  the  Old  Testament, 
which  catholic  Christians,  equally  with  the  Gnostics,  regarded 
as  incompatible  with  the  character  of  the  Supi:eme  Being, 
being  referred  by  them  to  the  Logos. 

In  his  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  Justin  Martyr  says:  "I  will 
endeavor  to  prove  to  you  from  the  Scriptures,  that  he  who  is 
said  to  have  appeared  to  Abraham,  to  Jacob,  and  to  Moses, 
and  is  called  God,  is  another  god  [that  is,  divine  being],  dif- 
ferent from  the  God  who  created  all  things ;  another,  I  say, 
numerically,  not  in  will ;  for  I  affirm  that  -he  never  did  any 
thing  at  any  time  but  what  it  was  the  will  of  Him  who  cre- 
ated the  world,  and  above  whom  there  is  no  other  God,  that 
he  should  do  and  say."* 

Justin,  among  many  other  similar  proofs  that  there  is 
another  god  beside  the  Supreme  God,  quotes  those  passages 
in  which  it  is  said,  that  God  ascended  from  Abraham  ;  that 
God  spoke  to  Moses ;  that  the  Lord  came  down  to  see  the 
tower  of  Babel  which  the  sons  of  men  had  built;  and  that 
God  shut  the  door  of  the  ark  after  Noah  had  entered.  "  Do 
not  suppose,"  he  says,  "that  the  unoriginated  God  either 
descended  or  ascended;  for  the  ineffable  Father  and  Lord 
of  all  neither  comes  anywhere,  nor  walks  nor  sleeps  nor 
arises ;  but  remains  in  his  own  place,  wherever  that  may  be." 

*  Dial,  cum  Tryph.,  p.  252. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE  GOSPELS.  301 

After  describing  the  greatness,  omniscience,  and  omnipres- 
ence of  the  Supreme  God,  he  proceeds:  "How,  then,  can  he 
speak  to  an}^  one,  or  be  seen  by  any  one,  or  appear  in  a  little 
portion  of  the  earth,  when  the  people  could  not  behold  oii 
Sinai  even  the  glory  of  him  whom  he  sent !  .  .  .  Neither 
Abraham,  therefore,  nor  Isaac,  nor  Jacob,  nor  any  other  man, 
ever  saw  the  Father,  the  ineffable  Lord  of  all,  even  of  Christ 
himself;  but  they  saw  him  who,  through  the  will  of  the 
Father,  was  a  god,  his  Son,  and  likewise  his  angel,  as  min- 
istering to  his  purposes."* 

Tertullian  regarded  the  Son,  or  the  Logos,  as  having  been 
the  minister  of  God  in  creation  and  in  all  his  subsequent 
works.  To  him  he  ascribes  whatever  actions  are  ascribed 
to  God  in  the  Old  Testament.  "  He  always  descended  to 
converse  with  men,  from  the  time  of  Adam  to  that  of  the 
patriarchs  and  prophets.  .  .  .  He  who  was  to  assume  a 
human  body  and  soul  was  even  then  acquainted  with  human 
affections ;  asking  Adam,  as  if  ignorant.  Where  art  thou, 
Adam  ?  repenting  of  having  made  man,  as  if  wanting  pre- 
science ;  putting  Abraham  to  trial,  as  if  ignorant  of  what  was 
in  man ;  offended  and  reconciled  with  the  same  individuals : 
and  so  it  is  with  regard  to  all  which  the  heretics  [the  Gnos- 
tics] seize  upon  to  object  to  the  Creator,  as  unworthy  of  God; 
they  being  ignorant  that  those  things  were  suitable  to  the 
Son,  who  was  about  to  submit  to  human  affections,  to  thirst, 
hunger,  and  tears,  and  even  to  be  born  and  to  die.  .  .  . 
How  can  it  be,  that  God,  the  Omnipotent,  the  Invisible, 
whom  no  man  hath  seen  or  can  see,  who  dwells  in  light  inac- 
cessible, walked  in  the  evening  in  paradise,  seeking  Adam, 
and  shut  the  door  of  the  ark  after  Noah  had  entered,  and 
cooled  himself  under  an  oak  with  Abraham,  and  called  to 
Moses  from  a  burning  bush?  .  .  .  These  things  would  not 
be  credible  concerning  the  Son  of  God,  if  they  were  not  writ- 

*  Dial,  cum  Tryph.,  pp.  410,  411. 


302  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

ten:    perhaps   they  would   not  be   credible   concerning  the 
Father,  if  they  were."* 

In  his  work  against  Marcion,  Tertullian,  after  explaining 
various  particular  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  objected  to 
by  him,  says,  that  he  will  give  a  summary  answer  to  the  rest. 
<'  I  will  give,"  are  his  words,  "  a  simple  and  certain  account 
of  whatever  else  you  have  objected  to  the  Creator,  as  mean 
and  weak  and  unworthy.  It  is,  that  God  could  not  have  had 
intercourse  with  men,  unless  he  had  assumed  the  feelings  and 
affections  of  humanity,  by  which  he  humbled  and  tempered  to 
human  infirmity  the  intolerable  might  of  his  majesty.  Un- 
worthy indeed  it  was  in  respect  to  himself,  but  necessary  for 
man;  and  therefore  became  worthy  of  God,  since  nothing 
can  be  so  worthy  of  God  as  the  salvation  of  man."  Marcion 
himself  believed  that  God  had  manifested  himself  as  Christ ; 
and  Tertullian  proceeds,  in  language  so  foreign  from  what 
we  are  accustomed  to,  that  it  hardly  admits  of  a  literal  trans- 
lation :  "  Why  do  you  think  that  those  humiliations  [the  facts 
in  the  Old  Testament  which  Marcion  so  regarded]  are  un- 
worthy of  our  God,  seeing  that  they  are  more  tolerable  than 
the  contumelies  of  the  Jews,  and  the  cross,  and  the  tomb  ? 
Are  not  those  humiliations  ground  for  concluding,!  that 
Christ,  subjected  as  he  was  to  the  accidents  of  man,  came 
from  the  same  God  whose  assumption  of  humanity  is  made 
by  you  a  matter  of  reproach?  For  we  further  maintain, 
that  Christ  has  always  been  the  agent  of  the  Father  in  his 
name,  that  it  was  he  who  from  the  beginning  was  conversant 
with  men,  who  had  intercourse  with  the  patriarchs  and  proph- 
ets ;  being  the  son  of  the  Creator,  his  Logos,  whom  he  made 
his  Son  by  producing  him  from  himself,  and  then  set  him  over 
all  that  he  disposed  and  willed ;  '  making  him  a  little  lower 

*  Advers.  Praxeam,  c.  16,  pp.  509,  510. 

t  "An  hai  sunt  pusillitates  qua;  jam  prajudicare  debebunt,"  &c.  For 
"An,"  we  may  read  "An  non,"  as  the  sense  (about  which  there  is  no  uncer- 
tainty) seems  to  require. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        303 

than  the  angels/  as  was  written  by  David.  In  thus  beiiif 
made  lower  than  the  angels,  he  was  prepared  by  the  Father 
for  those  assumptions  of  humanity  with  which  you  find  fault. 
He  learnt  from  the  beginning,  being  then  already  a  man,  what 
he  was  to  be  at  last.  It  was  he  who  descended,  he  who  ques- 
tioned, he  who  demanded,  he  wlio  swore.  But  that  the 
Father  has  been  seen  by  none,  the  Gospel  common  to  us 
both*  bears  witness;  for  in  this  Christ  says,  'No  one  has 
known  the  Father  but  the  Son.'  For  he  had  pronounced  in 
the  Old  Testament  likewise,  'No  one  shall  see  God  and  live;' 
thus  determining  that  the  Father  is  invisible,  in  whose  name 
and  by  whose  authority  he  who  became  visible  as  the  Sou  of 
God  was  God.  .  .  .  Thus  whatever  you  require  as  worthy 
of  God  will  be  found  in  the  invisible  Fatlier,  remote  from 
human  intercourse,  calm,  and,  if  I  may  so  speak,  the  God 
of  the  philosophers  ;  but  whatever  you  censure  as  unworthy 
will  be  ascribed  to  the  Son,  who  was  seen,  and  heard,  and 
had  intercourse  with  men,  who  sees  the  Father  and  ministers 
to  him,  who  unites  in  himself  humanity  and  divinity,  being 
in  his  powers  divine,  in  his  humiliation  a  man,  that  what  he 
parts  with  from  his  divinity  he  may  confer  on  man.  All,  in 
fine,  that  you  regard  as  dishonorable  to  my  God  is  the 
pledge  of  human  salvation."! 

In  the  passage  just  quoted,  beside  the  doctrine,  that  the 
Logos,  or  Son,  was  the  being  represented  as  God  in  the  Old 
Testament,  and  that  to  him  actions  might  be  ascribed  which 
would  be  unsuitable  to  the  Father,  there  appears  another 
conception,  which  is  often  presented  in  the  writings  of  Ter- 
tuUian,  and  is  employed  by  him  elsewhere  to  answer  the 
objections  of  the  Gnostics  to  the  Old  Testament.  It  is,  that, 
in  both   the  Jewish  and  Christian  disi)ensations,  the  means 


*  That  is,  the  Gospel  of  Luke  as  used  b}-  Marcioa. 
t  Advers.  Marcion.,  lib.  ii,  c.  27,  pp.  395,  396. 


804  EVIDENCES   OP  THE 

used  by  God  to  effect  his  purposes  are  such  as  in  the  view 
of  man  may  appear  unworthy,  incongruous,  and  contemptible. 
He  regards  this  as  characteristic  of  the  special  manifestations 
of  God.  He  grounds  the  conception  particularly  on  a  passage 
of  St.  Paul,  which  he  frequently  quotes  or  alludes  to:  "  God 
has  chosen  the  foolish  things  of  the  world  to  put  wise 
men  to  shame,  and  the  weak  things  of  the  world  God  has 
chosen  to  put  to  shame  the  strong,  and  the  mean  things  of 
the  world,  and  the  despised,  has  God  chosen ;  and  things  that 
are  nought,  to  do  away  what  exist."*  Tertullian,  under- 
standing this  passage  as  he  did,  was  able  to  reconcile  himself 
to  much  that  might  otherwise  have  offended  him  in  the  Old 
Testament.  "  Nothing,"  he  says,  "  ordained  by  Qod  is  truly 
mean,  and  ignoble,  and  contemptible,  but  only  what  proceeds 
from  man.  But  many  things  in  the  Old  Testament  may  be 
charged  upon  the  Creator  as  foolish  and  weak  and  shameful 
and  little  and  contemptible.  What  more  foolish,  what  more 
weak,  than  the  exaction  by  God  of  bloody  sacrifices  and 
sweet  -  smelling  holocausts?  What  more  weak  than  the 
cleansing  of  cups  and  beds  ?  What  more  shameful  than  to 
inflict  a  new  blemish  on  the  ruddy  flesh  of  an  infant  ?  What 
so  mean  as  the  law  of  retaliation  ?  What  so  contemptible  as 
the  prohibition  of  certain  kinds  of  food?  Every  heretic,  as 
far  as  I  know,  ridicules  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament, 
For  God  chose  the  foolish  things  of  the  world  to  confound 
its  wisdom."  t 

It  is  to  be  observed,  however,  that  Tertullian  had,  in  a 
former  part  of  his  work4  ably  defended  the  reasonableness 
of  all  the  requisitions  of  the  Law  of  which  he  here  speaks, 
except  circumcision ;  and  that  the  defence  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, in  its  literal  or  obvious  sense,  was  not  neglected  by 
other  fathers. 


*  1  Cor.  i.  27,  28.  f  Advers.  Marcion.,  lib.  v.  c  5,  p.  467. 

I  Ibid.,  lib.  ii.  c.  18,  seqq. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  305 

But,  ill  connection  with  those  that  have  been  mentioned, 
another  solution  was  found  for  its  difnculties  in  the  supposi- 
tion of  a  hidden  or  allegorical  sense.  This  imaginary  sense 
was  believed  not  to  be  expressed  by  the  words  in  their  direct 
meaning,  but  to  be  one  of  which  the  direct  meaning  presented 
an  allegory,  a  type,  a  symbolical  representation,  or  an  enig- 
matical expression.  The  allegorical  mode  of  interpretation 
was  unsupported  by  any  tenable  reasoning;  it  proceeded  on 
no  settled  principles ;  it  had  no  definite  limits  in  its  applica- 
tion;  there  was  not,  even  professedly,  any  test  of  its  correct- 
ness; nor,  generally,  does  there  appear  to  have  been  a  distinct 
apprehension  that  the  meaning  educed  by  it  was  intended  by 
the  writer  to  whose  words  it  was  ascribed.*     The  subject 


*  The  following  may  serve  as  a  specimen  of  allegorical  interpretation. 
In  Exod.  XV.  23-27,  it  is  related,  that  the  Israelites,  after  crossing  the  Red 
Sea,  came  to  the  waters  of  jNtarah,  which  were  so  bitter  that  they  could  not 
drink  them ;  but  that  the  Lord  showed  Moses  a  tree,  which,  wiien  he  cast 
into  the  water,  it  became  sweet;  and  that  afterwards,  the  Israelites  arrived  at 
Elim,  where  were  twelve  wells  of  water,  and  threescore  and  ten  palm-trees. 

"  It  is  very  strange,"  says  Origen,  "  that  God  should  show  IMoses  a  tree  to 
cast  into  the  water,  to  make  it  sweet.  Could  he  not  make  the  water  sweet 
without  a  treeV  But  let  us  see  what  beauty  there  is  in  the  inner  sense." 
He  accordingly  explains,  that,  allegorically  understood,  the  bitter  waters  of 
Marah  denote  the  Jewish  Law,  which,  in  its  literal  purport,  is  bitter  enough; 
so  that  of  its  bitterness  the  true  people  of  God  cannot  drink.  "  What,  then, 
is  the  tree  which  God  showed  to  Moses  ?  Solomon  teaches  us,  when  he  says 
of  Wisdom,  that  she  is  a  tree  of  life  to  all  ivho  embrace  her.  If,  therefore,  the 
tree  of  wisdom,  Christ,  be  cast  into  the  Law,"  and  show  us  how  it  ought  to 
be  understood  (I  compress  several  clauses  into  these  words),  "then  the  water 
of  Marah  becomes  sweet,  and  the  bitterness  of  the  letter  of  the  Law  is  changed 
into  the  sweetness  of  spiritual  intelligence ;  and  then  the  people  of  God  can 
drink  of  it."  Origen  afterwards  remarks  on  the  subsequent  arrival  of  the 
Israelites  at  Elim  with  its  twelve  springs  and  seventy  palm-trees.  "  Do  you 
think,"  he  asks,  "  that  any  reason  can  be  given  why  they  were  not  first  led 
to  Elim?  ...  If  we  follow  the  history  alone,  it  does  not  much  edify  us  to 
know  where  they  tirst  went,  and  where  they  next  went.  But,  if  we  search 
out  the  mystery  hidden  in  these  things,  we  find  the  order  of  faith.  'Ihe 
people  is  first  led  to  the  letter  of  the  Law,  from  which,  while  this  retains  its 
bitterness,  it  cannot  depart.  But,  when  the  Law  is  made  sweet  by  the  tree 
of  life,  and  begins  to  be  spiritually  understood,  then  the  people  passes  from 

20 


306  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

was  still  further  confused  by  the  circumstance,  that  the  term 
"  to  allegorize "  was  applied  to  the  use  of  simply  figurative 
language,  of  which  the  true  meaning  was  sufficiently  obvious  ; 
and  such  language,  in  consequence,  was  confounded  with  that 
to  which  an  imaginary  mystical  sense  was  assigned.  Thus, 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  in  remarking  on  the  words  of  our 
Saviour,  "The  good  shepherd  lays  down  his  life  for  his 
sheep,"  speaks  of  Christ  as  by  sheep  expressing  allegorically 
a  flock  of  men.*  As  to  Origen,  though  it  is  not  probable  that 
he  had  ever  so  stated  the  subject  to  his  own  mind,  yet  his 
customary  modes  of  speaking  in  relation  to  it  imply  that  all 
interpretation  of  Scripture  which  is  not  literal  is  allegorical, 
and  that  there  is  no  choice  but  of  the  one  mode  or  the 
other. 

The  allegorical  mode  of  interpretation  thus  affords  a  strik- 
ing illustration  of  the  indistinct  conceptions  and  unsubstantial 


the  Old  Testament  to  the  New,  and  comes  to  the  twelve  fountains  of  the 
apostles.  In  the  same  place,  also,  are  found  seventy  palm-trees.  For  not 
alone  the  twelve  apostles  preached  faith  in  Christ;  but  it  is  related,  that 
seventy  otliers  were  sent  to  preach  the  word  of  God,  through  whom  the  world 
might  acknowledge  the  palms  of  the  victory  of  Christ."  —  Homil.  in  Exod. 
vii.  §§  1,  3,  0pp.  ii.  151,  152. 

Such  is  the  style  of  interpretation  which,  intermixed  with  good  sense,  just 
remarks,  and  correct  moral  and  religious  sentiments,  prevails  throughout  the 
expository  works  of  Philo  and  Orisen,  and  is  frequent  in  the  writings  of 
many  of  the  other  fathers  beside  Origen;  especially,  as  regards  our  present 
purpose,  in  those  of  Justin  Martyr,  Irenaeus,  Clement,  and  Tertullian. 

"  Ce  qu'il  3'-  a  de  commode,"  says  Le  Clerc,  "  dans  cette  maniere  d'expli- 
quer  la  Bible,  c'est  que  Ton  fait  de  son  texte  la  meme  chose  que  les  Peripate- 
ticicns  font  de  leur  matiere  premiere,  quce  neqiie  est  quid,  neque  quale.,  neque 
quantum,  neque  quicquam  eorum  qidbus  ens  denominatur.  On  le  tourne  eomme 
on  veut;  on  lui  donne  la  forme  que  Ton  trouve  a  propos;  et  Ton  y  trouveroit 
(?galement  son  compte,  quand  il  auroit  dit  tout  le  contraire."  —  Bibliothfeque 
Universelle,  torn.  xii.  p.  20. 

*  Et  6e  T]  TToifiVTi  7/  uXkriyopov}i£vr]  izpog  tov  Kvpiov  ovdev  u22x)  ^ 
uyilr]  Ttc  uvdpumjv  ianv,  k.  t.  A.  — Stromat.  i.  p.  421.  The  same  use  of 
uXkr]yopt:iJ,  or  an  equivalent  term,  may  be  found  on  p.  104,  11.  17,  30;  p.  129, 
11.  20,  29;  p.  138,  1.  5;  p.  148,  1.  5;  p.  528,  1.  21;  p.  708,  1.  11;  p.  771,  1.  23; 
p.  806,  1.  17. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        307 

reasoning  of  the  ancients.  For  we  must  not  suppose  that  it 
was  adopted  by  the  fathers  alone,  or  confined  in  its  applica- 
tion to  the  Scriptures.  It  was  prevalent  in  the  age  of  which 
we  speak.  It  had  for  a  long  time  been  applied  by  the  heathen 
philosophers  to  the  offensive  fables  of  their  mythology,  the 
scandal  of  which  they  endeavored  to  remove  by  rei)resentiiig 
them  as  symbolical  representations  of  certain  truths  coucern- 
hig  the  physical  and  moral  world  ;  a  mode  of  explanation 
which,  with  little  good  sense,  has  been  continued  to  our  own 
day.*  The  revelations  in  the  heathen  mysteries  probably 
consisted  in  great  part  of  such  interpretations  of  the  heathen 
mythology.  The  philosophical  Jews  also  had  resoi'ted  to 
it  in  the  exposition  of  the  Old  Testament ;  and,  in  applying 
it  to  the  same  book,  the  fathers  only  followed  in  the  broad 
path  which  had  been  cleared  by  Philo.  His  explanations  of 
the  Old  Testament  are  throughout  allegorical.  He  had  the 
same  feeling  as  the  Christian  fathers  of  the  objections  to 
which  it  is  liable,  if  understood  in  its  obvious  sense,  and  of 
the  supposed  necessity  of  recurring  to  a  hidden  meaning. 
Thus,  in  reference  to  the  account  of  the  formation  of  Eve,  he 
affirms  that  "  what  is  said  concerning  it  is  fabulous  ;  "  that  is, 
that  the  obvious  meaning  is  fabulous.  "  How  can  any  one," 
he  asks,  "  credit  that  a  woman,  or  any  human  being,  was 
made  out  of  the  rib  of  a  man  ?  "  And  after  various  objec- 
tions to  the  story,  he  proceeds  to  convert  it  into  an  allegory.f 
Speaking  of  the  serpent  which  tempted  Eve,  and  of  the 
brazen  serpent  of  Moses,  he  says,  "  These  thing.-j,  as  they 
are  written,  are  like  prodigies  and  portents;  but,  when  alle- 
gorically  explained,  the  fabulous  immediately  disappears,  and 
the   truth   is   manifestly  discovered."  J      After  quoting  the 


*  On  this  subject,  see  (in  the  "Bibliotht'^que  Choisie,"  torn.  vii.  p.  88,  seqq.) 
the  remarks  of  Le  Clerc,  who,  in  the  compass  of  a  few  pages,  treats  it  with  hia 
customary  clearness  and  judgment. 

t  Legis  Allegorii\i,  lib.  ii.  0pp.  i.  70,  ed.  Mangey. 

X  De  Agricultura,  0pp.  i.  315. 


308  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

words,  "  And  God  planted  a  garden  in  Eden,"  lie  says,  that 
to  understand  this  of  his  planting  vines,  or  fruit-trees  of  any- 
kind,  would  be  great  and  hardly  curable  folly.  "  We  must 
have  recourse  to  allegory,  the  friend  of  clear-sighted  men."  * 
Thus,  also,  in  commenting  on  the  passage,  "  Cain  departed 
from  the  face  of  God,"  he  regards  it  as  proving  that  what  is 
written  in  the  books  of  Moses  is  to  be  understood  tropologi- 
colly  (that  is,  allegorically),  the  apparent  meaning  presented 
at  first  sis^ht  bein^r  far  from  the  truth.  "  For  if  God  have 
a  face,  and  he  who  wills  to  leave  him  may  easily  remove  else- 
where, why  do  we  reject  the  impiety  of  the  Epicureans,  or 
the  atheism  of  the  Egyptians,  or  the  mythological  fables  of 
which  the  world  is  full  ?  "  f  Many  similar  passages  occur  in 
his  writings.  % 

Nor  was  the  allegorical  mode  of  understanding  the  Jewish 
Scriptures  introduced  by  Philo.  He  celebrates  the  Thera- 
peutse,  a  sect  among  the  Jews  who  devoted  themselves  to 
religious  exercises  and  meditation,  and  of  them  he  relates, 
that  they  occupied  much  of  their  time  in  the  allegorical  expo- 
sition of  the  sacred  writings,  regarding  the  literal  meaning  as 
symbolical  of  hidden  senses,  expressed  enigmatically.  He 
says,  that  they  compared  the  whole  Law  to  an  animal,  its 
body  being  the  Hteral  precepts,  but  its  soul  the  invisible  sense 
lying  treasured  up  in  the  words  ;  and  adds,  that,  in  their  alle- 
gorical exposition,  they  had  for  models  the  writings  of  ancient 
men,  the  founders  of  the  sect.  §  Elsewhere,  Philo  repeatedly 
refers  to  this  mode  of  interpretation  as  common.  "  I  have 
heard,"  he  says  in  one  place,  "  another  explanation  from  in- 


*  De  Plantatione  Noe,  0pp.  i.  334:  conf.  De  Mundi  Opificio,  0pp.  i.  37; 
Legis  Allegoriae,  lib.  i.  0pp.  i.  32. 

(  De  Posteritate  Caini,  0pp.  i.  226. 

\  As,  for  example,  Legis  Allegorioe,  lib.  ii.  0pp.  i.  70,  lib.  iii.  88.  Quod 
Deterius  Potiori  insidiari  soleat,  0pp.  i.  194,  209,  223.  De  Posteritate  Caini, 
0pp.  i.  232,  234.  235.     Quod  Dens  sit  immutabilis,  0pp.  i.  292,  —  tt  alibi. 

§  De  Vita  Contemplativa,  0pp.  ii.  475,  483. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  309 

spired  men,  who  consider  most  things  in  the  Laws  as  visible 
and  spoken  symbols  of  the  invisible  and  unspeakable."  *  The 
confidence  with  which,  throughout  his  works,  he  proceeds  on 
the  system  of  allegorical  exposition,  without  explaining  or 
defending  it,  shows  that  it  was  well  known  and  admitted.  Its 
general  prevalence  is  likewise  made  evident  by  the  fact,  that 
it  appears  in  quotations  from  the  Jewish  Scriptures  in  the 
New  Testament,  particularly  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

The  Christian  fathers,  from  the  beginning,  adopting  the 
conceptions  of  their  age,  interpreted  the  Old  Testament  alle- 
gorically.  Justin  Martyr,  in  his  Dialogue  with  Trypho, 
abounds  in  such  expositions  of  it ;  but,  in  a  controversy  with 
a  Jew,  he  was  not  called  upon  to  defend  it.  He  makes 
evident,  however,  his  notions  of  its  character,  as  requiring  to 
be  thus  explained.  After  having  represented  the  blood  of 
the  passover,  with  which  the  Israelites  sprinkled  their  door- 
posts when  the  first-born  of  the  Egyptians  were  destroyed, 
and  the  scarlet  line  which  the  harlot  Rahab  hung  out 
when  Jericho  was  taken,  as  both  intended  for  types  of  the 
blood  of  Christ,  shed  for  the  deliverance  of  men,  he  thus 
addresses  Trypho :  "  But  you,  who  explain  these  things  in 
a  low  sense,  impute  much  weakness  to  God,  through  under- 
standing them  so  simply,  and  not  inquiring  into  the  true 
purport  of  what  is  said.  For  thus  [that  is,  by  understanding 
the  Scriptures  thus  literally]  even  Moses  may  be  judged  a 
transgressor  ;  since,  after  commanding  that  no  likeness  should 
be  made  of  any  thing  either  in  heaven,  or  on  the  earth,  or  in 
the  sea,  he  himself  made  a  brazen  serpent,  and,  setting  it  up 
for  a  sie-n,  directed  those  who  were  bitten  to  look  upon  it ; 
and,  by  looking  upon  it,  they  were  saved.  So  the  serpent, 
then,  whom  God  cursed  in  the  beginning,  and  destroyed,  as 
Isaiah  proclaims,  with  a  great  sword,t  will  be  thouglit  to 
have  then  saved  the  people ;  and  thus  we  shall  understand 


*  De  Specialibus  Legibus.  0pp.  ii.  829.  t  Isa.  xxvii.  1. 


310  EVIDENCES   OP   THE 

such  things  foolishly,  like  your  teachers,  and  not  as  symbol- 
ical." * 

Irenaeus  does  not  resort  to  allegorical  interpretation  in 
directly  answering  the  objections  of  the  Gnostics  to  the  Old 
Testament.  He  defends  it  in  its  obvious  meaning,  in  much 
the  same  manner  as  modern  divines  have  done.  But,  in 
maintaining  its  connection  with  Christianity,  he  represents  it 
as  full  of  types,  shadowing  forth  in  their  hidden  senses  the 
coming  dispensation  ;  and  in  such  hidden  senses  it  appears 
that  he  himself  was  disposed  to  take  refuge  from  the  ditficul- 
ties  that  pressed  upon  its  obvious  meaning.  Thus  he  says : 
"  One  of  the  ancient  presbyters  relieved  my  mind  by 
teaching  me,  .  .  that  when  the  wrong  actions  of  the  patri- 
archs and  prophets  are  simply  related  in  the  Scriptures  with- 
out any  censure,  we  ought  not  to  become  accusers  (for  we 
are  not  more  observing  than  God,  nor  can  we  be  above  our 
master),  but  to  look  foi*a  type.  For  no  one  of  those  actions 
which  are  mentioned  thus  uncensured  in  the  Scriptures  is 
without  its  purpose."  t 

Tertullian  does  not  dwell  at  length  on  the- objections  of  the 
heretics  to  the  Old  Testament  in  any  of  his  works  except  that 
against  IMarcion.  Marcion  rejected  the  allegorical  mode  of 
interpretation  ;  |  and,  in  reasoning  with  him,  Tertullian  de- 
fends, and  with  ability,  portions  of  the  Jewish  Law  and 
history  understood  in  their  obvious  sense,  except  so  far  as 
this  sense  was  modified  by  his  belief,  before  mentioned,  con- 
cerning the  agency  of  the  Logos.  But  he  abounds,  at  the 
same  time,  in  allegorical  expositions  of  the  Old  Testament, 
some  of  them  exceedingly  forced.  He  speaks  of  "  the  secret 
meanings  of  the  Law,  spiritual  as  it  is,  and  prophetical,  and 


*  Dial,  cum  Tryph.,  pp.  374,  375. 

t  Cont.  Hferes.,  lib.  iv.  c.  31,  §  1,  p.  268. 

J  Tertullian.  advers.  Marcion.,  lib.  ii.  c.  21,  p.  392;  lib.  iii.  cc.  4,  5,  pp. 
898,  399.  Origcn.  Comment,  in  Matt.,  torn.  xv.  §  3,  0pp.  iii.  655.  In  Epist. 
ad  Romanes,  lib.  ii.  0pp.  iv.  494,  495. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  311 

full  of  figures  in  almost  every  part."  *  And,  in  another 
place,  he  describes  God,  the  God  of  the  Old  Testament,  as 
"  making  foolish  the  wisdom  of  the  world,  choosing  its  foolish 
things,  and  disposing  them  for  man's  salvation  ;  "  this  being, 
he  says,  the  hidden  wisdom  of  which  the  apostle  speaks, 
"  which  was  in  foolish  and  little  and  shameful  things,  wliich 
lay  hid  under  figures,  allegories,  and  enigmas,  and  was  after- 
wards to  be  revealed  in  Christ."  f 

Celsus,  who  lived  in  the  second  century,  was  acquainted 
with  this  manner  of  explaining  and  defending  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  expressed  himself  vehemently  against  it.  "  He 
attacks  the  history  of  Moses,"  says  Origen,  "  and  finds  fault 
with  those  who  explain  it  tropologically  and  allegorically."  X 
"  He  seems  to  me  to  have  heard  of  writings  containing  the 
allegories  of  the  Law,  which  if  he  had  read,  he  would  not 
have  said,  '  The  pretended  allegories  written  concerning 
these  fables  are  far  more  offensive  and  absurd  than  the  fables 
themselves ;  for,  with  marvellous  and  altogether  senseless 
folly,  they  bring  together  things  which  can  in  no  way  what- 
ever be  fitted  to  one  another.'  He  seems,"  continues  Origen, 
"  to  refer  to  the  writings  of  Philo,  or  to  others  still  more 
ancient,  as  those  of  Aristobulus."  §  But  Origen  did  not 
mean  to  imply,  that  Celsus,  in  his  attack  on  the  allegorical 
interpretations  of  the  Old  Testament,  had  not  in  view  Chris- 
tian allegorists  as  well  as  Jewish.  He  had  a  little  before 
quoted  from  him  a  passage,  in  which  Celsus,  speaking  of  some 
of  the  narratives  in  Genesis  and  Exodus,  says,  that  "the  more 
rational  of  the  Jews  and  Christians  turn  them  into  allegories. 
They  take  refuge  in  allegory  because  they  are  ashamed  of 
them."     In  reply,  Origen  makes  a  strong  retort  upon  the 


*  Advers.  INIarcion.,  lib.  ii.  c.  19,  p.  391. 

t  Ibid.,  lib.  V.  c.  6,  p.  467. 

J  Cont  Cels.,  lib.  i.  §  17,  0pp.  i.  336. 

§  Ibid.,  lib.  iv.  §  51,  p.  542. 


312  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

obscene  fables  of  the  mythology  of  the  Pagans,  which  their* 
philosophers  represented  as  allegories.* 

The  early  fathers,  in  general,  allegorized  freely  in  their 
expositions  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  evidently  regarded 
this  mode  of  exposition  as  a  means  of  removing  objections  to 
it.  But  no  other  of  their  number  has  recurred  to  this  method 
so  confidently  as  Origen,  of  whom  Jerome,  before  he  began 
to  regard  his  opinions  as  heretical,  declared,  that  "  none  but 
an  ignorant  man  would  deny,  that,  next  after  the  apostles,  he 
was  the  master  of  the  churches."  f  Origen,  proceeding  on 
the  hypothesis  of  the  verbal  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures, 
allegorized  the  New  Testament  as  well  as  the  Old ;  perceiving 
no  other  method  of  solving  the  great  difficulties  which,  on 
that  hypothesis,  often  presented  themselves  to  his  mind  in 
the  verbal  meaning  of  the  Gospels  and  Epistles,  t  His  no-« 
tions  of  the  Old  Testament  appear  in  the  passages  already 
quoted ;  but  it  may  be  worth  while  to  adduce  a  few  others. 

"  There  are  many  of  the  laws  of  Moses,"  he  says,  "  which, 
as  regards  their  literal  observance,  are  absurd  or  impossible. 
It  is  absurd  to  forbid  the  eating  of  vultures,  §  a  kind  of  food 
which  none,  however  pressed  by  hunger,  would  resort  to. 
An  infant  not  circumcised  on  the  eighth  day,  it  is  said,  shall 
be  cut  off  from  the  people.  |1  Were  any  law  which  was  to  be 
understood  literally,  required  respecting  this  matter,  it  ought 
to  have  been,  that  the  parents,  or  those  who  have  the  care  of 
such  an  infant,  should  suffer  death."  Tf  In  one  of  his  Hom- 
ilies, speaking  of  the  directions  concerning  the  sin-offering 
in  Leviticus,**  he  says,  "  All  this,  as  I  have  often  before 
observed  when  the  passage  was  recited  in  the  church,  unless 

*  Cont.  Cels.,  §  48,  p.  540 ;  §  50,  p.  542. 

t  Fraifat.  in  lib.  de  Interpret.  Nomin.  Hebrseor.  0pp.  ii.  3. 

J  See  p.  103.       §  Lev.  xi.  14.   Deut.  xiv.  13.        ||  Gen.  xvii.  12, 14. 

*I[  De  Principiis,  lib.  iv.  §  17,  0pp.  i.  p.  176.  Origen  treats  at  length  of 
the  subject  of  allegorical  interpretation,  in  the  work  just  refeiTed  to,  p.  164, 
seqq.  **  Chap.  vi.  24-30. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  313 

it  be  understood  in  a  sense  different  from  tlie  literal,  is  more 
likely  to  be  a  stumbling-block  in  the  way  of  Christianity,  and 
to  overthrow  it.  than  to  be  matter  for  exhortation  and  edifica- 
tion." *  Elsewhere,  in  treating  of  the  distinction  of  clean 
and  unclean  food,  after  having  allegorized  the  laws  respecting 
it,  he  thus  goes  on :  "  If  we  say  that  the  great  God  pro- 
mulgated laws  to  men  which  are  to  be  thus  understood,  I 
think  that  they  will  appear  worthy  of  the  divine  majesty. 
But  if  we  cleave  to  the  letter,  and  receive  them  as  they  are 
understood  by  the  Jews,  or  as  they  are  commonly  understood, 
I  should  blusli  to  atRrm  and  profess  that  such  laws  were  given 
by  God.  The  laws  of  men,  as  those  of  the  Romans,  or  of 
the  Athenians,  or  of  the  Lacedaemonians,  would  seem  more 
refined  and  rea:?onable.  But  if  the  Law  of  God  be  under- 
stood, as  is  taught  by  the  Church,  then  it  evidently  surpasses 
all  human  laws,  and  may  truly  be  believed  to  be  the  Law  of 
God."  t 

A  few  more  passages  will  sufficiently  illustrate  Origen's 
opinions  on  this  subject.  Speaking  of  different  narratives  in 
Exodus,  he  says,  "  These  are  not  written  to  afford  U3 
instruction  in  history,  nor  is  it  to  be  supposed  that  the  divine 
books  relate  the  acts  of  the  Egyptians  ;  but  what  is  written 
is  written  to'  afford  us  instruction  in  doctrine  and  morals.  % 
.  .  .  We,  who  have  learned  to  regard  all  that  is  written,  not 
as  containing  narratives  of  ancient  times,  but  as  written  for 
our  discipline  and  use,  perceive  that  what  is  here  read  takes 
place  now,  not  only  in  this  world,  which  is  figuratively  called 
Egypt,  but  in  each  one  of  ourselves."  §  This  mode  of  alle- 
gorizing Egypt  into  the  world  and  the  inferior  part  of  our 
nature  was,  with  much  else  of  the  same  character,  derived  by 
Origen   from  Philo.  |1      In  answering  certain  objections  of 


*  Homil.  in  Lev.,  v.  §  1,  0pp.  ii.  205.         t  Ibid.,  vii.  §  5,  0pp.  ii.  228. 
X  Homil.  in  Exod.,  i.  §  5,  0pp.  ii.  131.       §  Itid.,  ii.  §  1,  0pp.  ii.  133. 
U  Philo  de  Migratione  AbraUami,  passim. 


814  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

Celsus,  founded  on  the  Old  Testament,  he  has  these  words  :  ♦ 
"  We  say  the  law  is  twofold,  literal  and  allegorical,  as 
others  have  taught  before  us.  The  literal  has  been  pro- 
nounced, not  so  much  by  us  as  by  God,  speaking  in  one  of 
the  prophets,  to  consist  of  ordinances  not  good,  and  statutes 
not  good  ;  f  but  the  allegorical,  according  to  the  same  prophet, 
is  said  by  God  to  consist  of  good  ordinances  and  good  stat- 
utes. J  Certainly  the  prophet  does  not  here  [in  speaking  of 
the  Law  in  the  passages  referred  to]  assert  manifest  contra- 
dictions. And,  conformably  to  this,  Paul  says.  The  letter^ 
that  is,  the  Law  understood  WtQVsWy,  kills  ;  hut  the  spirit,  that 
is,  the  Law  understood  allegorically,  gives  life''  § 

The  allegorical  or  hidden  meaning  was  divided  into  the 
moral,  and  the  mystical  or  spiritual ;  the  moral  being  sup- 
posed to  relate  to  morality,  and  the  mystical  to  the  doctrines 
of  religion.  In  remarking  on  the  declaration  of  St.  Paul, 
The  works  of  the  flesh  are  apparent,  ||  Origen  allegorizes  the 
passage  as  referring  to  the  literal  sense  of  the  Old  Testament. 
This  was  figuratively  called  the  carnal  sense,  being  compared 
to  the  body  in  man  ;  while  the  two  branches  of  the  allegori 
cal  —  the  moral,  and  the  mystical  or  spiritual  —  were  compared 
to  the  soul  and  to  the  spirit,  according  to  the  threefold  divis- 
ion of  man  in  ancient  theology.  "  The  history  of  the  divine 
volumes,"  he  says,  "'  contains  the  works  of  the  flesh,  and  is  of 
little  benefit  to  those  who  understand  it  as  it  is  written." 


*  Cont.  Cels.,  lib.  vii.  §  20,  0pp.  i.  708. 

t  Ezek.  XX.  25.  %  Ezek.  xx.  11. 

§  2  Cor.  iii.  6.  —  This  is  a  passage  which,  from  the  time  of  Origen  to  the 
present  day,  has  been  often  so  quoted  as  to  pervert  its  meaning.  The  word 
y(mu/j.a,  incorrectly  translated  "letter,"  means  "what  is  written,"  "the  writ- 
ten Law,"  "  the  Jewish  Law."  St.  Paul  says,  that  he  was  not  a  minister  of 
that  Law,  but  of  "  the  Spirit,"  or,  in  other  words,  of  the  spiritual  blessings 
to  be  received  through  Christ ;  "  for  the  written  Law  causes  death  [that  is,  to 
such  as  adhere  to  it  in  opposition  to  Christianity],  but  the  Spirit  gives  life." 
There  is  no  reference  to  the  distinction  between  the  letter  and  the  spirit  of  any 
particular  writing.  |1  Gal.  v.  19. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        315 

The  examples  of  the  patriarchs,  according  to  liim,  lead  to 
dissoluteness,  and  the  sacrifices  of  the  Law  to  idolatry,  if  the 
history  of  the  former,  and  the  injunctions  concerning  the  latter, 
are  not  supposed  to  have  a  further  meaning  than  appears  in 
the  letter.  "That  the  language  of  Scripture,"  lie  adds, 
"  in  its  obvious  sense,  teaches  hatred,  is  shown  by  this  pas- 
sage :  Wretched  daughter  of  Babylon !  Blessed  be  he  who 
shall  requite  thee  as  thou  hast  treated  us.  Blessed  be  he 
who  shall  take  thy  little  ones  and  dash  them  against  the 
stones  ;*  and  by  this  passage:  In  the  morning^  I  slew  all  the 
sinners  of  the  land.^  And  there  are  others  of  a  similar  kind, 
expressive  of  contention,  rivalry,  anger,  strife,  dissension ; 
which  vices  the  examples  set  before  us  in  the  history,  if  we 
do  not  look  to  their  higher  meaning,  are  more  likely  to 
produce  than  to  restrain.  Heresies,  likewise,  owe  their  ex- 
istence rather  to  understanding  the  Scriptures  carnally  [liter- 
ally] than,  as  many  think,  to  the  works  of  the  flesh."  $  The 
last  sentence  shows  the  liberality  of  Origen.  From  this,  as 
well  as  from  passages  before  cited,  §  we  perceive  what  he 
thought  the  main  occasion  of  the  heresy  of  the  Gnostics,  and 
consequently  what  he  regarded  as  its  essential  characteristic, 
that  is  to  say,  their  doctrine  concerning  the  Jewish  dispensa- 
tion. All  the  passages  quoted  from  him  prove,  likewise,  that 
he  agreed  with  the  Gnostics  in  regarding  the  opinions  of  the 
Jews  respecting  their  Scriptures  as  untenable,  if  these  Scrip- 
tures were  to  be  understood  only  in  their  obvious  meaning. 
But,  if  the  metaphor  may  be  allowed,  he  thought  that  their 
difficulties  were  to  be  solved  in  the  menstruum  of  allegor- 
ical interpretation,  and  that  the  essential  meaning  might  thus 
be  obtained  in  crystalline  purity. 


*  Psalm  cxxxvii.  8,  9.  t  Psalm  ci.  8. 

J  Ex  decimo  Stromatum  Origen.  Lib.  (apud  Hieronymi  Comment,  in  Ep. 
ad  Galat,  0pp.  iv.  pars  1,  coll.  294,  295),  Origenis  0pp.  torn.  i.  p.  41. 
§  See  pp.  295,  296 


316  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

^  Among  the  Gnostics,  Marcion,  as  I  have  said,  rejected  the 
allegorical  mode  of  interpretation.  Other  Gnostics,  particu- 
larly the  Valentinians,  allegorized  at  least  as  extravagantly 
as  the  fathers ;  ^but  they  were  not  disposed,  like  them,  thus  to 
do  away  the  difficulties  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures.  They,  per- 
haps, felt  more  strongly  the  common  dislike  of  the  Gentiles 
to  the  Jews.  They  were  not  so  ready  to  overcome  the  first 
unfavorable  impressions  which  those  books  made  upon  their 
minds.  Their  faith  as  Christians  was  more  imperfect ;  it 
was  more  implicated  with  their  philosophical  speculations  ; 
and  they  were  not  as  solicitous  as  the  catholic  Christians 
to  receive  all  which  they  supposed  to  be  taught  or  implied  in 
the  New  Testament.  Their  hypothesis  respecting  the  Jewish 
dispensation,  that  it  proceeded  from  an  inferior  divinity,  was 
equally  in  accordance  with  the  notions  of  the  times,  as  the 
supposition  that  the  books  of  the  Jews  were  to  be  interpreted 
allegorically.  By  their  theory,  —  by  admitting  the  existence 
and  acts  of  the  God  of  the  Jews,  but  denying  him  to  be  the 
Supreme  Being,  —  they  accounted,  as  they  believed,  for  the 
otherwise  inexplicable  phenomena  which  those  books  pre- 
sented ;  while  the  catholic  Christians  thought  themselves 
enabled  to  escape  the  force  of  the  objections  founded  on  those 
phenomena,  by  the  allegorical  mode  of  interpretation,  and  the 
other  expedients  to  which  they  had  recourse. 

'it  may  appear,  then,  that  the  principal  occasion  of  the 
existence  of  the  Gnostics,  that  is,  of  proper  Christian  Gnos- 
tics, was  the  impossibility,  as  it  seemed  to  them,  of  regarding 
the  God  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  God  of  Christians  as 
the  same  being.  It  is  true,  that  their  systems,  as  we  shall 
see,  were  intended  to  give  an  account  of  the  evil  in  the  world. 
But,  in  having  this  object  in  view,  they  did  not  differ  from  the 
catholic  Christians,  nor  from  heathen  philosophers.  What 
characterizes  them  is  their  regarding  the  Jewish  dispensation 
as  an  essential  part  of  the  evil  and  imperfection  to  be  ac- 


GENUINENESS  OP  THE  GOSPELS.        317 

counted  for,  and  the  character  and  agency  which  they  conse- 
quently assigned  in  their  systems  to  the  God  of  the  Jews. 
They  were  constituted  a  peculiar  class  by  being  Christians 
who  separated  Judaism  from  Christianity.  In  the  contro- 
versy with  their  catholic  opponents,  the  strength  of  their 
cause  evidently  lay  in  their  objections  to  the  Old  Testament. 
These  they  appear  to  have  been  most  ready  to  bring  forward 
in  defending  their  systems.  In  them  they  had  a  vantage- 
ground  above  their  opponents,  and  could  become  assailants  in 
their  turn.  Such  was  the  state  of  opinion  and  feeling  in  the 
early  age  when  the  Gnostics  were  most  numerous  and  re- 
spectable, that  we  might  reasonably  suppose  that  a  consid- 
erable number  of  individuals  would  embrace  Christianity  with 
more  or  less  imperfect  faith,  who  would  not  extend  their 
belief  so  far  as  to  acknowledge  Judaism  also  as  a  dispensation 
from  God. 

The  belief  of  the  catholic  Christians  in  the  divine  origin  of 
Judaism  was  a  genuine  consequence  of  their  Christian  faith. 
But  with  this  belief,  as  if  the  one  thing  were  necessarily 
connected  with  the  other,  they  went  on  to  adopt,  likewise, 
the  opinions  of  the  Jews  concerning  the  divine  authority  of 
the  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  Those  opinions  were  not, 
indeed,  at  once  received  by  all  Christians  not  Gnostics,  as  we 
have  seen  in  the  case  of  the  author  of  the  Clementine  Hom- 
ilies ;  but  they  soon  obtained  general  reception.  The  belief 
of  the  divine  authority  of  the  Jewish  books  was  even  extended 
by  the  catholic  Christians  to  embrace  most  of  those  which 
constitute  the  Apocrypha  of  our  modern  Bibles. 

There  are  few  phenomena  in  the  history  of  opinions  more 
remarkable  than  this  reception  of  the  Jewish  notions  concern- 
ing the  Old  Testament  by  the  generality  of  the  early  Chris- 
tians. The  Jews  had  been  regarded  with  aversion  by  other 
nations.  The  unbelieving  Jews  continued  to  be  so  by  the 
Gentile  Christians ;  and  the  believing  Jews  were  an  hereticai 


818  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

sect  in  little  repute.  The  books  of  the  Old  Testament, 
though  accessible  to  every  Greek  and  Roman  scholar  through 
the  medium  of  the  Greek  translation  of  them,  the  Septuagint, 
had  heretofore  been  treated  with  contemptuous  neglect.  The 
Gentile  Christians,  by  whom  they  were  received  as  of  divine 
authority,  were,  with  very  few  exceptions,  wholly  unac- 
quainted with  their  original  language,  and  obliged  to  recur 
for  its  meaning  to  copies  of  the  Septuagint  or  of  other  trans- 
lations, the  correctness  of  which  was  denied  by  their  oppo- 
nents, the  unbelieving  Jews.  At  the  same  time,  they  had  a 
strong  feeling  of  the  objections  to  which  the  Pentateuch  and 
other  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  are  exposed,  if  understood 
in  their  obvious  meaning,  or,  as  they  expressed  it,  in  their 
literal  sense ;  and  notwithstanding  the  allegorical  mode  of 
interpretation,  and  the  other  expedients  by  which  they  es- 
caped from  these  difficulties,  they  were  reduced  to  straits, 
both  in  reconciling  many  passages  to  their  own  reason  and 
moral  sentiments,  and  in  defending  them  against  the  attacks 
of  Gnostics  and  unbelievers.  Still  they  encumbered  their 
cause,  and  gave  great  advantage  to  their  opponents,  by  as- 
serting the  Jewish  opinions  concerning  the  character  of  those 
books,  in  consequence  of  the  belief  that  the  truth  of  Chris- 
tianity implied,  not  merely  the  fact  of  the  divine  mission  of 
Moses,  but  the  truth  of  those  Jewish  opinions.  The  scholars 
and  philosophers,  —  for  scholars  and  philosophers  they  were, 
notwithstanding  any  modern  prejudices  to  the  contrary,  — 
who  during  the  first  three  centuries  appear  as  Christian  fath 
ers,  received  from  the  Jews,  with  whom  as  a  people  they  had 
no  friendly  intercourse,  all  their  canonical  books  ;  regarding 
them  as  of  divine  origin,  and  ascribing  to  them  equal  author- 
ity with  the  records  of  Christianity.  It  must  have  been  a 
powerfully  operative  cause  which  produced  this  result.  It 
strikingly  evinces  the  strength  of  evidence  that  accompanied 
our  religion.  Its  proofs  must  have  been  overwhelming, 
when,  in  addition  to  establishing  an  invincible  faith  in  the 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        819 

religion  itself,  they  occasioned,  notwithstanding  such  obstacles, 
the  adoption  of  the  Jewish  opinions  respecting  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. 

.  The  fundamental  difference,  then,  between  the  Gnostics 
and  the  catholic  Christians  consisted  in  their  different  views 
of  Judaism,  and  of  the  author  of  the  Jewish  dispensation. 
But,  like  other  speculatists  of  their  day,  the  Gnostics  formed 
for  themselves  a  system  of  the  universe,  in  which,  answer- 
ably  to  the  declarations  of  the  Old  Testament,  he  whom  they 
regarded  as  the  god  of  the  Jews  appears  as  the  Creator  of 
the  physical  world.  Such  a  system  necessarily  embraced 
some  solution,  or  rather  some  account,  of  the  evil  that  exists; 
and  this  was  partly  found  in  the  supposed  character  of  the 
Creator,  and  partly  in  the  evil  nature  ascribed  to  matter.  , 


Tne  topics  treated  of  in  this  chapter  naturally  suggest 
the  mquirv,  In  what  manner  should  the  Jewish  dispensation 
and  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  be  regarded  ?  The 
views  *i*a.t  have  been  given  of  the  opinions  of  the  early  Chris- 
tians, both  Catholics  and  Gnostics,  involve  the  whole  subject 
in  doubts  and  difficulties,  of  which  no  rational  solution  is 
afforded.  But  the  Jewish  is  intimately  connected  with  the 
ChrUtian  dispensation,  and  one  may  therefore  reasonably  be 
un.wdling  to  dismiss  the  inquiry  without  some  attempt  to 
answer  it.  I  have  accordingly  considered  the  subject  else- 
w^  ^re.* 

♦  See  the  original  edition  of  this  work,  vol.  ii.,  Additional  Note,  D. 


CHAPTER    YH. 

OP    THE    MANNER    IN    WHICH    THE     GNOSTICS     RECONCILED 
THEIR    DOCTRINES    WITH    CHRISTIANITY. 

In  comparing  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  the  Gnostics  with  the 
teaching  of  Christ,  as  recorded  in  the  Gospels,  or  with  the 
Christian  Scriptures  generally,  the  question  naturally  arises, 
How  could  they  imagine  those  doctrines  to  have  been  taught 
by  the  Master  whom  they  professed  to  follow,  or  identify 
them  in  any  way  with  Christianity  ?  We  may,  at  first  view, 
be  inclined  strongly  to  suspect  that  they  held  the  common 
histories  of  Christ,  and  the  other  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, in  no  esteem ;  and  to  adopt  the  inference  of  Gibbon, 
that  "  it  was  impossible  that  the  Gnostics  could  receive  our 
present  Gospels."* 

But,  on  further  attention  to  the  subject,  we  may  perceive 
that  there  is  nothing  peculiar  in  the  case  of  the  Gnostics. 
Their  systems  have  long  been  obsolete ;  they  are  foreign 
from  our  thoughts  and  imaginations ;  and,  in  comparing 
tliem  with  the  systems  of  other  sects,  we  are  apt  to 
measure  their  relative  distance  from  Christianity  by  their 
relative  distance  from  the  forms  of  Christian  belief  with 
which  we  are  familiar.  Of  opinions  equally  false,  those 
with  which  we  have  long  been  acquainted  seem  to  us  much 
less  extraordinary  than  such  as  are  newly  presented  to  our 

*  See  p.  161. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  321 

minds.     In  inquiring,  therefore,  how  the  Gnostics  could  mis- 
take their  doctrines  for  the  doctrines  of  Christianity,  the  first 
consideration  to  be  attended  to  is  the  fact,  that  their  mistake 
was  not  greater  than  that  which  has  been  committed  by  a 
large  majority  of  the  professed  disciples  of  Christ.     The  fiiith 
of  the  whole    Christian  world  for   ten  centuries  before   the 
Reformation  had  no  advantage  over  that  of  the  Gnostics,  in 
being  more  accordant  with  reason   and   Christianity.     The 
gross  literal  errors  and  absurdities,  maintained  by  the  Catho- 
lics of  this  period,  are  in  as  strong  contrast  with  the  truths  of 
our  religion,  as  the  mystic  extravagances  of  the  early  heretics. 
The  system  by  which  the  Catholic  foith  was  supplanted  among 
Protestants,  with  its  doctrines  concerning  the  threefold  per- 
sonality of  God,  and  concerning   God's  government  of  his 
creatures;    with  its  representations  of  the  totiilly  depraved 
nature,  capable  only  of  moral  evil,  with  which  he  brings  men 
into  being ;  with  its  scheme  of  redemption  required  by  man's 
utter  misery  and  helplessness  ;  its  infinite  satisfaction  to  the 
justice  of  God  the  Father,  made  by  the  sufferings  of  God 
the  Son  ;  and  its  "horrible  decrees,"*  —  may  perhaps  appear, 
to  a  rational  believer  of  the  present  day,  to  stand  in  as  open 
and  direct  opposition  to  Christianity  as  the  systems  of  the 
leading    Gnostics.     Or,    to   come   down    to    a    later    period, 
the  hypotheses  and  expositions  by  which  the  Gnostics  recon- 
ciled their  conceptions  with  the  declarations  of  Christ  and 
his  apostles  could  not,  as  many  will  think,  be  more  irrational 
and  extravagant  than  the  hypotheses  and  expositions  of  tiiat 
modern   school   of  German   theologians,  who,  admitting  the 
authenticity  of  the  Gospels,  find  nothing  supernatural  in  the 

*  I  borrow  the  expression  from  a  well-known  passage  of  Calvin.  "  Unde 
factum  est,  ut  tot  gentes  una  cum  liberis  eorum  infantibus  ieterna;  murti 
involveret  lapsus  Adx  absque  remedio,  nisi  quia  Deo  ita  visun)  est?  .  .  . 
Decretum  quidem  horribile  niteor." -"  Whence  is  it,  that  the  full  oi  Adam 
involved  so  many  nations,  with  their  infant  children,  in  eternal  death,  without 
remedy,  except  that  it  so  seemed  good  to  God?  .  .  .  It  is  a  horrible  decree, 
I  confess."  — Institut.,  lib.  iii.  c.  23,  §  7. 

21 


322  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

history,  but  explain,  as  conformable  to  the  common  laws  of 
nature,  events  which,  according  to  their  theory,  have,  from 
the  time  of  their  occurrence  to  the  present  day,  been  mistaken 
for  miracles.  I  refer  to  the  opinions  of  large  bodies  of  Chris- 
tians, or  of  men  claiming  to  be  called  Christians;  and  to 
peculations  which  have  been  defended  by  such  as  were,  or 
have  been  reputed  to  be,  learned  and  able.  It  is  not  neces- 
sary to  pursue  the  illustration  by  adverting  to  the  doctrines 
of  smaller  sects.  I  will  only  observe  further,  as  the  case 
seems  to  me  particularly  analogous,  that  the  disciples  of 
Swedenborg  are  believers  in  our  religion,  that  they  have 
their  full  share  of  the  Christian  virtues,  and  that  they 
have  reckoned  among  their  number  men  of  more  than  com- 
mon powers  of  mind  ;  while  he  who  rejects  the  systems  both 
of  Ptolemy  and  of  Swedenborg  will  probably  think  that  there 
is  no  reason  for  preferring  one  to  the  other,  on  account  of 
its  being  the  more  rational  faith,  or  having  a  better  founda- 
tion in  the  Gospels. 

"Whatever  opinions  a  thinking  man  may  entertain  of  Chris- 
tianity, or  of  religion  unconnected  with  Christianity,  when 
he  compares  them  with  those  which  have  existed,  or  are 
existing,  among  mankind,  he  will  find  himself  in  a  small 
minority.     Whoever  may  really  have  attained  to  the 

"bene  munita,  .  .  . 
"  Edita  doctrina  sapientum,  templa  serena,"  — 

to  the  serene  temples,  well  fortified,  huilt  up  hy  the  learning 
of  the  wise,  — 

"  Despicere  unde  queas  alios,  passimque  videre 
Errare  atque  viam  palenteis  quserere  vitae,"  — 

will  assuredly  not  find  them  thronged;  and,  from  their 
height,  he  will  see  not  a  few  others  wandering  in  errors  as 
extravagant  as  those  of  the  Gnostics. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         323 

Such  have,  for  many  centuries,  been  the  doctrines  of  tlie 
larger  portion  of  the  professed  followers  of  Christ,  that  faith 
has  been  formally  disconnected  from  reason ;  and  reason,  or, 
as  the  term  is  usually  qualified,  human  reason,  has  been 
represented  as  its  dangerous  enemy.  From  the  time  of  the 
Gnostics  to  our  own,  there  has  always  been  a  very  numerous 
class,  composed  of  individuals  who  have  held  different  and 
opposite  tenets,  but  who  have  all  in  common  appealed,  in 
some  form  or  other,  to  an  inward  sense,  a  spiritual  discern- 
ment, infallible  in  its  perceptions,  surpassing  the  powers  of 
the  understanding,  and  superseding  their  use.  "  The  natural 
man,"  says  St.  Paul,  meaning  the  unconverted,  him  who 
rejected  revelation,  "receives  not  the  truths  of  the  spirit  of 
God ;  for  they  are  foolishness  to  him,  and  he  caimot  know 
them,  because  they  are  spiritually  discerned;"*  that  is  to 
say,  spiritual  things,  the  truths  taught  by  Christianity,  are 
to  be  discerned  only  through  the  light  which  Christianity 
affords.  But  the  words  of  the  apostle  w^ere  early  perverted 
by  the  theosophic  Gnostics  ;t  and  there  are  none  that  have 
been  more  commonly  or  more  mischievously  abused.  One 
main  occasion  of  the  existence,  not  only  of  the  Gnostics,  but 
of  other  sects  of  religionists,  has  been  the  vanity  of  belonging 
to  a  spiritual  aristocracy,  from  which  good  sense,  learning, 
and  rational  piety  only  form  a  ground  of  exclusion.  Those 
Gnostics,  with  their  pretence  to  spiritual  discernment,  had  no 
more  difficulty  than  later  sects  in  finding  what  they  looked 
for  in  the  teachings  of  Christ. 

The  ease  with  which  different  parties  among  Christians 
have  discovered  apparent  support  for  doctrines  the  most 
irrational  has  been  essentially  connected  with  a  fundamental 
error  respecting  the  nature  of  those  writings  which  compose 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments.    All  these  writings,  so  different 


*  1  Cor.  ii.  14.  t  Irenseus,  lib.  i.  c.  8,  §  3,  p.  39. 


324  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

in  character  and  value,  have  been  represented  as  constituting 
the  Revelation  from  God.  They  have  been  ascribed  to  God 
as  their  pro[)er  author ;  the  human  writers  being  considered 
only  as  agents  under  his  immediate  direction.  When,  there- 
fore, all  these  different  writers,  with  all  their  imperfect  and 
erroneous  conceptions,  were  thus  transformed  into  infallible 
divine  instructors,  there  is  no  wonder,  that  their  words,  even 
if  correctly  understood,  should  afford  support  for  many  errors. 
But,  beside  the  direct  conse(|uence  of  this  fundamental  misap- 
prehension, there  has  been  an  indirect  consequence  not  less 
important.  The  words  contained  in  the  books  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments  being  regarded  as  the  words,  not  of  men, 
but  of  God,  the  rational  principles  of  interpretation,  which 
would  apply  to  them  as  the  words  of  men,  have  been  set 
aside.  These  princi2)les  would  lead  us  to  study  the  respective 
characters  of  the  authors  of  those  books,  and  the  various  influ- 
ences which  were  acting  upon  them,  and  to  make  ourselves 
acquainted  with  the  particular  occasion  and  purpose  of  their 
different  writings,  and  with  the  characters,  circumstances, 
opinions,  errors,  and  modes  of  expression  of  those  for  whom 
their  writings  were  immediately  intended ;  and  when  we  had 
thus  enabled  ourselves,  as  far  as  possible,  to  sympathize  with 
them,  we  should  determine  their  meaning  with  a  constant 
regard  to  the  considerations  which  we  had  thus  grouped 
together.  But  such  knowledge  is  foreign  from  the  purpose, 
if  the  books  to  be  explained  are  not  properly  the  works  of 
human  authors.  It  has,  accordingly,  been  disregarded.  The 
essential  elements  and  rules  of  a  correct  interpretation  have 
been  neglected ;  and  the  work  of  explaining  the  Scriptures 
has  been  denied  to  reason  and  judgment,  and  delivered  over 
to  men's  preconceptions,  caprices,  imaginations,  and  spiritual 
discernment.  The  consequence  has  been,  that,  in  the  per- 
formance of  this  work,  we  may  find  all  varieties  of  error, 
from  the  wildest  allegories  and  cabalistic  follies,  down  to 
the  imposition  of  verbal  meanings  which  are  verbal  o*'  'aio«'-«l 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  325 

absurdities.  The  false  modes  of  interpretation  common  in 
their  day  afforded  the  theosophic  Gnostics,  as  false  modes  of 
interpretation  have  afforded  later  sect^*,  a  ready  means  of  ap- 
parently reconciling  their  opinions  with  the  Scriptures. 

Every  one  acquainted  with  theological  controversy  must 
be  familiar  with  the  fiict,  that,  in  defending  doctrines  contrary 
to  the  teaching  of  Christ,  a  few  texts  are  seized  upon,  the 
words  of  which,  when  standing  alone,  admit  an  interpretation 
favorable  to  those  doctrines ;  and  that  their  defenders,  fixing 
their  attention  on  these  texts,  are  able  to  close  their  eyes  to 
the  whole  opposing  tenor  of  the  New  Testament.  But  the 
Gnostics  could  have  been  in  uo  want  of  such  toxts  as  might 
readily  be  accommodated  to  the  support  of  their  fundamental 
doctrine,  that  the  God  of  the  Jews  was  not  the  God  of 
Christians.  .  Marcion  wrote  a  work  on  this  subject,  which  he 
entitled  "  Antitheses,"  the  main  object  of  which  was  to  point 
out  the  contrariety  between  the  representations  given  by 
Christ  of  his  Father,  and  those  given  of  God  in  the  Old 
Testament.*  The  opposition  between  Christianity  and  some 
of  the  views  of  religion  and  morals  presented  in  the  Penta- 
teuch (which  I  have  had  occasion  to  remark)  furnished  the 
Gnostics  with  a  storehouse  of  arguments  from  Scripture.  As 
regards  another  principal  point,  the  claim  set  up  by  the  the- 
osophic Gnostics  to  be  by  nature  the  chosen,  or  the  elect,  of 
God,  as  being  the  spiritual,  they  could  have  found  no  more 
difficulty  in  supporting  their  pretensions  from  the  New 
Testament,  than  one  of  those  who,  since  their  day,  have 
claimed  to  be  elected  as  the  spiritual  through  a  decree  of 
God,  irrespective  of  any  merits  of  their  own.  Similar  motles 
of  misinterpretation  would  apply  as  well  in  the  one  case  aa 
the  other,  and  furnish  a  similar  harvest  of  apparent  proofs. 


*  Tertnllian.  advers.  Marcion.,  lib.  i.  c  19,  p.  374;  lib.  iv.  c.  I,  p.  413, 
C.  6,  p.  41^> 


826  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

After  these  general  remarks,  we  will  proceed  to  consider 
more  particularly  the  means  by  which  the  Gnostics  reconciled 
their  doctrines  with  their  Christian  faith.  The  inquiry  is  one 
of  particular  interest,  on  account  of  the  proof  which  it  affords 
that  the  Gnostics  had  no  other  Gospel-history  than  that  which 
was  common  to  them  with  the  catholic  Christians  and  with 
ourselves ;  and  that,  together  with  the  catholic  Christians, 
they  used  some  one,  or  all,  of  our  present  Gospels,  as  the 
only  document  or  documents  of  any  value  respecting  the  min- 
istry of  Christ. 

In  the  first  place,  then,  the  theosophic  Gnostics,  in  common 
with  the  catholic  Christians,  applied  the  allegorical  mode  of 
interpretation  to  the  New  Testament.  Neglecting  the  proper 
meaning  of  words,  they  educed  from  them  my>tical  senses. 
Of  these,  I  have  already,  in  the  course  of  this  work,  produced 
examples ;  and  many  more  are  given  by  their  early  oppo- 
nents, particularly  by  Irenaeus.  This  afforded  a  ready  means 
of  accommodating  the  language  of  the  New  Testament  to 
their  conceptions.  But  their  whole  system  jof  interpretation 
was,  besides,  arbitrary,  and  unsupported  by  any  correct  prin- 
ciples. The  vocabulary  of  the  theosophic  Gnostics,  like  that 
of  other  erring  sects,  consisted,  in  great  part,  of  words  from 
the  New  Testament,  on  which  they  had  imposed  new  senses. 
The  names  of  the  ^ons  most  frequently  mentioned  were 
borrowed  from  the  New  Testament ;  and,  as  the  same  name 
was  applied  by  them  to  different  individuals,  —  as  the  name 
of  God,  for  example,  was  given  both  to  the  Gnostic  Creator 
and  to  the  Supreme  Being,  and  that  of  Jesus  both  to  the  ^Eon 
so  named  and  to  the  man  Jesus,  —  it  thus  became  easy  for 
them,  on  the  one  hand,  to  find  supposed  references  to  their 
theory,  and,  on  the  other,  to  explain  away  much  that  was 
inconsistent  with  it. 

Like  other  false  expositors  of  Scripture,  the  Gnostics 
detached  particular  passages  from  their  connection,  and  io- 


GENUINENESS    OF   THE    GOSPELS.  327 

fused  a  foreign  meaning  into  the  words.  Trena^us,  after 
saying  that  they  appealed  to  unwritten  tradition  as  a  source 
of  their  knowledge,  goes  on  to  remark,  that,  "twisting,  ac- 
cording to  the  proverb,  a  rope  of  sand,  they  endeavor  to 
accommodate,  in  a  plausible  manner,  to  their  doctrines  the 
parables  of  the  Lord,  the  declarations  of  the  prophets,  or 
the  words  of  the  apostles,  so  that  their  fiction  may  not  seera 
to  be  without  proof.  But  they  neglect  the  order  and  connec- 
tion of  the  Scriptures,  and  disjoin,  as  far  as  they  are  able, 
the  members  of  the  truth.  They  transpose  and  refashion, 
and,  making  one  thing  out  of  another,  they  deceive  many  by 
a  fabricated  show  of  the  words  of  the  Lord  which  they  put 
together."*  The  Gnostics,  according  to  him,  in  thus  putting 
together  proofs  from  Scripture,  resembled  one  who,  taking  a 
mosaic  representing  a  king,  should  separate  the  stones,  and 
then  form  them  into  the  likeness  of  a  dog  or  a  fox.f  He 
afterwards  compares  them  to  those  who  made  centos  from 
lines  of  Homer,  by  which  some  story  was  told  altogether 
foreign  from  any  thing  in  his  works. $  They  allowed,  he 
says,  that  the  unknown  God,  and  the  transactions  within  the 
Pleroma,  "  were  not  plainly  declared  by  the  Saviour,  because 
all  had  not  capacity  to  receive  such  knowledge ;  but,  to  those 
who  were  able  to  understand  them,  they  were  signified  by 
him  mystically  and  in  parables."  § 

Li  addition  to  these  modes  of  interpretation,  the  theosophic 
Gnostics  likewise  maintained  a  principle  similar  to  a  funda- 
mental doctrine  of  the  Roman  Catholics ;  namely,  that  reli- 
gious truth  could  not  be  learned  from  the  Scriptures  alone, 
•  without  the  aid  of  the  oral  instructions  of  Christ  and  his 
apostles,  as  preserved  by  tradition.     "  When,"  says  Ireniuus, 

*  Cont.  Hteres.,  lib.  i.  c  8,  §  1,  p.  36.  —For  aoipia,  in  the  last  sentence,  I 
•dopt  the  reading,  (pavraaia,  or  <j>avTucfiaTi.     See  Massuet's  note, 
t  Ibid.  i  Lib.  i.  c.  9,  §  4,  pp.  45,  46. 

§  Lib.  i.  c.  3,  §  1,  p.  14;  lib.  ii.  c.  10,  §  1,  p.  126;  c.  27,  §  2,  p.  155. 


328  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

*'  they  are  confuted  by  proofs  from  the  Scriptures,  they  turn 
and  accuse  the  Scriptures  themselves,  as  if  they  were  not 
correct,  nor  of  authority ;  they  say  that  they  contain  contra- 
dictions, and  that  the  truth  cannot  be  discovered  from  them 
by  those  who  are  ignorant  of  tradition.  For  that  it  was  not 
delivered  in  writing,  but  orally ;  whence  Paul  said,  '  We 
speak  wisdom  among  the  perfect,  but  not  the  wisdom  of  this 
woild.'"*  —  "The  heretics,"  says  Tertullian,  "pretend  that 
the  apostles  did  not  reveal  all  things  to  all,  but  taught  some 
doctrines  openly  to  every  one,  some  secretly,  and  to  a  few 
only."t  What  was  peculiar  in  their  own  doctrines  they 
reg-arded  as  that  esoteric  teachinoj  which  had  come  down  to 
them  by  oral  tradition. 

Conformably  to  this,  the  Gnostics,  in  particular  cases, 
pointed  out  certain  individuals,  supposed  disciples  of  the 
apostles,  from  whom  their  leaders  had  received  their  systems. 
Thus,  Valentinus  was  said  to  have  been  taught  by  Theodas, 
an  acquaintance  of  Paul,  and  Basilides  by  Glaucias,  a  com- 
panion of  Peter.  $  It  would  seem,  likewise,  from  a  single 
passage  in  Clement  of  Alexandria,  that  the  Gnostics  gener- 
ally boasted  that  their  opinions  were  favored  by  Matthias,  § 
who  was  chosen  an  apostle  in  the  place  of  Judas.  ||  Though 
the  remark  is  not  made  by  Clement,  yet  it  is  evident  that 
this  appeal  to  the  authority  of  a  particular  apostle  —  one  of 
whom  scarcely  any  thing  is  now  known,  and  of  whom  it 
follows  that  scarcely  any  thing  was  known  in  the  second 
century  —  proves  that  the  Gnostics  did  not  appeal  with  any 
confidence  to  the  authority  of  the  other  apostles. 

Irenoeus  earnestly  opposes  the  doctrine  of  a  secret  oral 
tradition.  T[  But  it  was  maintained  by  Clement  as  expressly 
and  fully  as  by  the  Gnostics.     It  was  altogether  consistent 

*  Lib.  iii.  c  2,  §  1,  p.  174. 

t  De  Pra'scriptione  Ho^reticorum,  cap.  25,  p.  210. 

X  Clement.  Al.  Stromat,  vii.  §  17,  p.  898.  §  Ibid.,  p.  900. 

U  Acts  i.  26.  ^  Cont.  Haeres.,  lib.  iii.  capp.  2-4,  pp.  174-170. 


GENUINENESS   OP   THE   GOSPELS.  329 

with  his  conceptions,  that  the  more  recondite  truths  of 
philosopliy  were  to  be  exhibited  under  a  veil,  and  not  to 
be  communicated  to  the  generality.  This  higher  knowledge, 
the  philosophy  of  Christianity,  to  which  he  gave  the  same 
name  (yraoig)  which  the  Gnostics  gave  to  their  specula- 
tions, he  supposed  was  to  be  attained  only  by  those  who 
were  in  his  view  true  Gnostics  (/yco^Tr/xot'),  that  is,  truly 
enlightened.  The  greater  number  of  Christians  had  only 
simple  faith,  —  faith  in  the  essential  truths  of  Christianity, 
which  was  sufficient  for  them.  On  this  faith,  as  its  founda- 
tion, all  higher  knowledge  rested.*  It  was  the  notion  of 
Clement,  that  the  secret  wisdom  of  which  he  speaks  was  first 
communicated  by  our  Lord  to  Peter,  James,  John,  and  Paul, 
from  whom  it  had  been  transmitted.!  "  Our  Lord,"  he  says, 
*'  did  not  at  once  reveal  to  many  those  truths  w  Inch  did  not 
belong  to  many ;  but  he  revealed  them  to  a  few  to  whom  he 
knew  them  to  be  adapted,  who  were  capable  of  receiving 
them,  and  of  being  conformed  to  them.  But  secret  things,  as 
God  [meaning,  I  conceive,  philosophical  speculations  con- 
cerning \  God],  are  committed,  not  to  writing,  but  to  oral  dis- 
courses." $ 

This  notion  of  a  secret  tradition  is  not  found  in  Justin 
Martyr,  Irenaeus,  or  Tertullian.  When  the  two  latter  speak 
of  tradition,  they  mean  that  traditionary  knowledge  of  the 
history  and  doctrines  of  Christianity  which  necessarily  ex- 
isted among  Christians.  It  is  described  by  Irenieus  as  a 
"  tradition  manifest  throughout  the  world,  and  to  be  found  in 
every  church."  §  By  it,  he  says,  a  knowledge  of  our  religion 
was  preserved  without  books  among  believers  in  barbarous 
nations. II  At  the  end  of  about  a  century  from  the  preaching 
of  the  apostles,  there  must  have  been,  throughout  the  com- 

*  See,  among  many  passages  to  this  effect,  Stromat.,  vii.  pp.  890,  891. 
t  Stromat.,  i  p.  322.     Etiam  apud  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  ii.  c.  1. 

I  Stromat.,  i.  p.  323.  §  Lib.  iii.  c.  3,  §  1,  p.  175. 

II  Ibid.,  c.  4,  §  2,  p.  178. 


530  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

munities  which  they  had  formed,  a  general  acquaintance  with 
what  they  had  taught,  even  had  no  written  records  of  our 
/•ehgion  been  extant.  In  regard,  likewise,  to  facts  important 
in  their  reference  to  Christianity,  —  as,  for  example,  the  genu- 
ineness of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  —  the  Christians 
of  the  last  half  of  the  second  century  must  have  relied  on  the 
testimony  of  their  predecessors.  It  is  this  traditionary  knowl- 
edge concerning  Christianity,  not  secret,  but  open  to  all,  which 
IreniEus  and  Tertullian  appeal  to,  with  justifiable  confidence, 
in  their  reasonings  against  the  heretics,  when  they  distinguish 
between  the  evidence  from  tradition  and  the  evidence  from 
Scripture.  The  tradition  of  which  they  speak  is  altogether 
different  from  the  secret  tradition  of  Clement. 

The  origin  of  the  opinion  common  to  Clement  and  to  the 
theosophic  Gnostics  may  be  explained  by  the  supposition, 
that  inferences,  true  or  false,  from  the  truths  taught  by 
Christ  and  his  apostles,  and  theories  built  on  those  truths, 
were  conceived  of,  and  represented,  as  having  been  taught  by 
them ;  and,  since  it  did  not  appear  that  they  made  a  part  of 
their  public  teaching,  the  notion  in  consequence  grew  up,  that 
they  were  taught  by  them  privately.  This  notion  would  ally 
itself  with  the  conceptions  of  both  Clement  and  the  Gnostics 
concerning  that  higher  esoteric  wisdom  which  few  only  were 
capable  of  receiving.  In  holding  their  common  belief,  it  is 
probable  that  neither  had  a  distinct  conception  of  what  was 
embraced  in  the  tradition  the  existence  of  which  they  as- 
serted. It  appears  from  the  whole  tenor  of  the  Stromata  of 
Clement,  that,  in  his  view,  the  true  knowledge,  which,  in 
union  with  accordant  virtues,  constituted  an  enlightened 
Christian  {his  Gnostic),  in  the  highest  sense  of  the  words, 
comprehended  the  whole  compass  of  intellectual  philosophy, 
and  particularly  all  that  can  be  known  by  men  respecting  the 
nature,  attributes,  and  operations  of  God.*     If  he  had  been 

*  Instead  of  producing  at  length  the  authorities  and  reasons  for  this 


GENUINENESS   OP   THE   GOSPELS.  331 

asked,  whether  he  believed  that  all  this  knowledge  had 
been  handed  down  by  a  secret  tradition,  the  question  miglit 
have  presented  the  subject  to  his  mind  under  a  new  aspect, 
but  he  undoubtedly  would  have  answered  in  the  negative. 
Had  he  then  been  requested  to  point  out  what  particuUir  part 
of  it  he  conceived  to  have  been  thus  handed  down,  I  think  he 
would  have  been  embarrassed  by  the  inquiry. 

In  connection  with  their  notion  of  a  secret  tradition,  the 
Gnostics,  or  some  of  the  Gnostics,  said,  according  to  Irenieus, 

statement,  which  "would  carry  us  too  far  away  from  our  main  purpose,  I  will 
quote  a  few  sentences  from  the  valuable  work  of  the  present  Hishop  of  Lin- 
coln (Dr.  Kaye),  "entitled  "Some  Account  of  the  Writings  and  Opinions  of 
Clement  of  Alexandria."  It  is  the  most  nnportant  work  on  the  subject 
of  which  it  treats.     The  author  says  (pp.  238-241 ) :  — 

"  By  yvLbaiq  [the  higher  esoteric  knowledge]  Clement  understood  the 
perfect  knowledge  of  all  that  relates  to  God,  his  nature  and  dispensa- 
tions. .  .  .  The  Gnostic  [Clement's  Gnostic]  comprehends  not  only  the  First 
Cause  and  the  Cause  begotten  by  him  [the  Logos],  and  is  fixed  in  his  no- 
tions concerning  them,  possessing  firm  and  immovable  reasons;  but  al.«o, 
having  learned  from  the  truth  itself,  he  possesses  the  mo.tt  accurate  truth 
from  the  foundation  of  the  world  to  the  end,  concerning  good  and  evil,  and 
the  whole  creation,  and,  in  a  word,  concerning  all  which  the  Lord  spake  .  .  . 
With  respect  to  the  source  from  which  this  knowledge  is  derived,  Clement 
says,  that '  it  was  imported  by  Christ  to  Peter,  James,  John,  and  I'aul,  and 
by  them  delivered  down  to  their  successors  in  the  Church.  It  was  not 
designed  for  the  multitude,  but  communicated  to  those  only  who  were  capa- 
ble of  receiving  it;  orally,  not  by  writing.'  " 

The  notions  of  Clement  respecting  this  sacred  tradition  are  not  only  to  be 
distinguished  from  the  reasonable  conceptions  of  other  fathers  respecting  tliat 
public  traditionary  knowledge  concerning  Christianity  which  necessarily 
existed  among  Christians,  but  equally  also  from  an  opinion  which  began  to 
prevail  in  the  latter  half  of  the  fourth  century,  and  which  has  become  funda- 
mental in  the  Roman-Catholic  Church.  This  opinion  is,  that  certain  doctrines 
and  rites,  which  are  not  to  be  kept  secret,  but  are  to  be  made  known  to  all, 
and  to  be  believed  or  practised  by  all,  are  not  expressly  taught  or  enjoined 
in  the  New  Testament,  but  are  derived  from  the  oral  teaching  or  the  appoint- 
ment of  Christ  or  his  apostles,  a  knowledge  of  which  has  been  preserved  by 
tradition.  This  principle  was,  perhaps,  first  clearly  avowed  by  Basil  of 
Caesarea,  in  the  latter  half  of  the  fourth  century,  in  his  treatise,  "Concerning 
the  Holy  Spirit." 


K 


832  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

"that  the  apostles,  practising  dissimulation,  accommodated 
their  doctrine  to  the  capacity  of  their  hearers,  and  their 
answers  to  the  previous  conceptions  of  those  who  questioned 
them,  talking  blindly  with  the  blind,  weakly  with  the  weak, 
and  conformably  to  their  error  with  those  who  were  in  error ; 
and  that  thus  they  preached  the  Creator  to  those  who  thought 
that  the  Creator  was  the  only  God,  but  to  those  able  to 
comprehend  the  unknown  Father  they  communicated  this 
unspeakable  mystery  in  parables  and  enigmas."*  —  "Some," 
says  Irenoeus,  "  impudently  contend,  that  the  apostles,  preach- 
ing among  the  Jews,  could  not  announce  any  other  God  but 
him  in  whom  the  Jews  had  believed."  f 

I  Again :  some  of  the  Gnostics,  especially  the  Marcionites, 
maintained  that  Paul  was  far  superior  to  the  other  apostles 
in  the  knowledge  of  the  truth ;  "  the  hidden  doctrine  having 
been  manifested  to  him  by  revelation."  t  They  represented 
the  other  apostles  as  having  been  entangled  by  Jewish  preju- 
dices, from  which  he  was  in  a  great  measure  free.  Hence 
Tertullian,  in  one  place,  calls  him  "  the  Apostle  of  the  Here- 
tics." §  In  support  of  this  opinion,  Marcion  relied  much  on 
that  passage  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  |I  in  which  Paul 
represents  himself  as  having  reproved  Peter  and  Barnabas 
for  not  acting  conformably  to  the  principles  of  Christianity, 
but  by  their  conduct  "  compelling  the  Gentiles  to  Judaize," 
that  is,  to  observe  the  Levitical  Law.  %  Marcion  regarded 
the  Gospels  as  expressing  the  false  Jewish  opinions  of  their 
writers.  But  among  the  Gospels  he  conceived  that  there 
was  ground  for  making  a  choice;  and  he  selected,  for  his 
own  use  and  that  of  his  followers,  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  the 

*  Lib.  iii.  cap.  5,  §  1,  p.  179.         t  Ibid.,  cap.  12,  §  6,  p.  195. 
t  Ibid.,  c.  13,  §  1,  p.  200.  §  Advers.  Marcion.,  lib.  iii.  c.  5,  p.  399. 

II  Chap.  ii.  11,  seqq. 

^  Advers.  Marcion.,  lib.  iv.  c.  3,  pp.  414,  415;  lib.  1.  c.  20,  p.  375:   coiif. 
De  I'raescript.  Hseretic,  c.  23,  p.  210. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        333 

companion  of  Paul.  This  he  further  adapted  to  his  purpose 
by  rejecting  from  it  what  he  viewed  as  conformed  to  tlioso 
opinions.  Nor  did  he  consider  Paul  liimself  as  whol'v  free 
from  Jewish  errors,  but  likewise  struck  out,  from  those  of  his 
Epistles  which  he  used,  the  passages  in  which  he  thouglit 
Uiera  to  be  expressed. 

Sometimes,  according  to  Ircna?us,  the  Gnostics,  apparcntlv 
without  making  an  exception  in  favor  of  St.  Paul,  charged 
the  apostles  generally  with  Jewish  errors  and  ignorance  con- 
cerning the  higher  truths  and  mysteries  of  religion.  ''  All 
those,"  he  says,  "  who  hold  pernicious  doctrines,  have  departed 
m  their  faith  from  Him  who  is  God,  and  think  that  they  have 
found  out  more  than  the  apostles,  having  discovered  another 
God.  They  think  that  the  apostles  preached  the  Gospel 
while  yet  under  the  influence  of  Jewish  prejudices,  but  that 
their  own  faith  is  purer,  and  that  they  are  wiser  than  the 
apostles."  He  states  that  Marcion  proceeded  on  these  prin- 
ciples in  rejecting  the  use  of  some  of  the  books  of  Scripture, 
and  of  portions  of  those  which  he  retained.*  "  The  heretics," 
says  Tertullian, "  are  accustomed  to  affirm  that  the  apostles 
did  not  know  all  things;  while  at  other  times,  under  the 
influence  of  the  same  madness,  they  turn  about,  and  maintain, 
that  the  apostles  did  indeed  know  all  things,  but  did  not 
teach  all  things  to  all." f  —  "I  cannot  help  wondering,"  says 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  "  how  some  dare  to  call  themselves 
perfect,  and  Gnostics,  thinking  themselves  superior  to  the 
apostles."  I  But  the  theosophic  Gnostics  did  not  stop  here. 
Irenceus,  after  saying  that  the  heretics,  when  confuted  from 
the  Scriptures,  appealed  to  oral  tradition,  goes  on  thus  :  "  r>ut 
when  we,  on  the  other  hand,  appeal  to  that  tradition  which, 
proceeding  from  the  apostles,  has  been  preserved  in  the 
Church  by  a  succession  of  elders,  then  they  oppose  tradition, 


*  Lib.  iii.  c.  12,  §  12,  p.  198.       f  De  Praescript.  Hseretic,  c  22,  p.  209. 
t  Padagogus,  lib.  i.  c  6,  pp.  128, 129. 


834  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

saying  that  they,  being  not  only  \\iser  than  the  elders,  but 
wiser  than  the  apostles,  have  discovered  the  pure  truth.  For 
the  apostles,  they  say,  mixed  their  legal  notions  with  the 
words  of  the  Saviour ;  and  not  only  the  apostles,  but  the  Lord 
himself,  spoke  sometimes  from  the  Creator  [as  the  Messiah 
of  the  Creator],  sometimes  from  the  Middle  Space  [that  is, 
conformably  to  the  spiritual  nature  which  he  had  derived 
from  Achamoth],  and  sometimes  from  the  highest  height  [as 
the  JEon  Christ  from  the  Pleroma];*  but  that  they  them- 
selves know  with  full  assurance  the  hidden  mystery,  un- 
mixed, in  all  its  purity."  f  The  opinion  of  the  Gnostics, 
here  expressed,  concerning  the  discourses  of  Christ,  is  analo- 
gous to  the  Orthodox  doctrine,  still  extant,  that  he  spoke 
sometimes  as  a  man,  sometimes  as  God,  and  sometimes  in 
his  mediatorial  character,  as  neither  God  nor  man  simply, 
but  as  both  united ;  and  that,  as  a  man,  he  was  ignorant  of 
what,  being  God,  he  knew. 

There  is  nothing  to  object  to  the  general  proposition  of  the 
Gnostics,  that  the  apostles  were  under  the  influence  of  Jew- 
ish prejudices,  nor  to  the  proof  which  they  brought  of  this 
fact  from  the  conduct  of  Peter  and  Barnabas,  which  was 
reproved  by  Paul.  Their  extravagance  consisted  in  the 
irrational  misapplication  which  they  made  of  this  principle. 
The  spirit  of  God,  which  enlightened  the  minds  of  the  apos- 
tles as  to  all  essential  truths  of  religion,  did  not  deliver  them 


*  According  to  the  verbal  construction  of  the  old  Latin  Translation  of 
Irenoeus,  which  is  here  our  authority-,  and  which  I  have  followed  in  my 
translation,  though  not  in  my  exposition,  these  clauses  apply  equally  to  the 
apostles  as  to  Christ.  But  I  cannot  think  that  this  meaning  was  intended 
by  Irenaeus,  or,  at  least,  that  this  was  the  meaning  of  the  Gnostics.  Iren£eus 
elsewhere  (lib.  i.  c.  7,  §  3,  p.  34)  gives  a  similar  account  of  their  opinions  re^ 
specting  the  preaching  of  Christ,  without  mentioning  the  apostles.  Nor  is 
there  any  probability  that  the  Gnostics  believed  in  the  inspiration  of  men 
from  the  Pleroma,  which  opinion  would  be  implied  in  the  supposition  that 
the  apostles  sometimes  spoke  "  from  the  highest  height." 

t  Lib.  iii.  c  2,  §  2,  p.  176. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  335 

from  all  error,  and  transform  them  into  all-wise  and  all 
knowing  philosophers.  But,  if  the  apostles  were  liable  t<i 
any  errors,  they  were  particularly  exposed  to  the  influence  of 
those  in  which  they  had  been  educated,  and  could  hardly 
escape  being  more  or  less  affected  by  the  inveterate  concep- 
tions and  errors  of  their  countrymen.  It  being  the  object  of 
the  Gnostics  to  separate  Judaism  from  Christianity,  and  to 
distinguish  the  God  of  the  Jews  from  the  God  of  Christians, 
they  naturally  seized  upon  this  truth  to  effect  their  purpose; 
and  as  no  strongly  marked  line  can  be  drawn,  defining  the 
sphere  within  which  alone  the  apostles  were  liable  to  error, 
they  applied,  or  rather  misapplied,  a  principle,  correct  iu 
itself,  to  all  cases  in  which  the  words  of  the  apostles  so 
explicitly  contradicted  their  doctrine,  as  to  be  incapable,  by 
any  force,  of  being  conformed  to  it. 

It  remains  to  add  a  few  words  concerning  the  belief  of  the 
theosophic  Gnostics  in  their  own  infallible  spiritual  knowl- 
edge. This  they  conceived  of  as  the  result  of  their  spiritual 
nature.  "  They  object  to  us,"  says  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
"  that  we  are  of  another  nature,  and  unable  to  comprehend 
their  peculiar  doctrines."*  A  similar  pretension  to  that  of 
the  Gnostics  has  been  common  among  Christians.  An 
essential  doctrine  of  the  Roman-Catholic  Church  is  its  own 
infallibility,  —  an  infallibility  which  must  reside  in  some  of  its 
individual  members.  Among  the  sects  into  which  Protes- 
tants have  been  divided,  the  generality  have,  at  least  in  the 
earlier  stages  of  their  growth,  maintained  the  principle, 
expressed  in  the  perverted  language  of  St.  Paul,  that  spir- 
itual things  are  spiritually  discerned,  and  have,  of  course 
confined  this  unerring  spiritual  discernment  to  themselves. 
Calvin  taught  that "  the  first  step  in  the  school  of  the  Lord 
is  to  renounce  human  reason.!     For,  as  if  a  veil  were  inter- 


*  Stromat,  vii.  §  16,  pp.  891,  892.  f  "Humana  perspicacia." 


336  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

posed,  it  hinders  us'  from  attaining  to  the  mysteries  of  God, 
which  are  not  revealed  but  to  little  children;"*  and,  after 
these  words,  he  proceeds  to  quote,  as  might  be  expected,  the 
often-quoted  passage  of  St.  Paul  just  referred  to.  Even 
the  genuineness  and  inspiration  of  the  books  of  the  Bible, 
or,  as  he  expresses  it,  the  ftict  that  they  "  had  proceeded  from 
the  very  mouth  of  God "  (ah  ipsissimo  Dei  ore  Jluxisse)^ 
"  were  not  to  be  submitted  to  reasoning  and  arguments,"  but 
were  spiritually  discerned ;  so  as  to  be  known  with  the  same 
certainty  as  men  know  that  black  is  not  white,  and  sweet  is 
not  bitter."  t  The  theosophic  Gnostics,  in  expressing  their 
sense  of  the  incapacity  of  common  Christians  to  understand 
their  doctrines,  could  not  have  used  stronger  language  than 
that  of  Calvin  concerning  the  natural  blindness  of  the  unre- 
generate  to  the  truths  of  religion.  It  was,  in  his  view,  the 
spiritual  illumination  of  the  elect  which  enabled  them  clearly 
to  discern  these  truths ;  or,  in  other  words,  clearly  to  discern 
the  identity  of  the  system  which  he  taught  with  the  teachings 
of  Christ. 

The  Gnostics,  as  we  have  seen,  were  equally  able  with 
Calvin  to  identify  their  systems  with  Christianity.  .  In  the 
modes  by  which  they  effected  their  purpose,  we  may  observe 
the  same  operations  of  the  human  mind  as  have  been  going 
on  from  their  day  to  our  own.  One  of  the  most  effectual 
means  of  checking  their  further  progress  is,  by  directing  atten- 
tion to  the  extravagances  to  which  they  lead.  It  is  a  main 
advantage  resulting  from  the  study  of  obsolete  errors,  and 
one  which  this  study  alone  can  furnish,  that,  as  we  have  no 
prejudices  in  their  favor,  we  are  able,  without  disturbance,  to 
trace  them  to  their  sources ;  and  when  those  sources  are  dis- 
covered, we  may  perceive  that  they  are  still  in  full  action 
producing  new  errors,  or  more  commonly,   perhaps,  repro- 

*  Institut.,  lib.  iii.  c.  2,  §  34.  f  Ibict-j  lib.  i.  c  7. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        337 

ducing  old  ones  under  a  new  form.  It  may  be  doubted, 
whether  a  History  of  Human  Folly  would  not  be  a  more 
instructive  work  than  our  Histories  of  Philosophy;  but  its 
contents  would  not  be  throughout  so  different  from  theirs  as 
its  different  title  might  lead  one  to  expect. 

Among  the  Gospels,  the  Marcionites  used  only  their  copy 
of  that  of  Luke.  To  this  they  joined  ten  Epistles  of  St.  Paul, 
from  which,  as  from  the  Gospel,  they  rejected  certain  pas- 
sages, as  I  have  before  mentioned.  On  this  history  of  Christ, 
and  on  these  Epistles,  they  founded  their  system,  and  f\om 
them  they  reasoned.  They  appealed  to  them  as  freely  and 
confidently  as  did  the  catholic  Christians,  and  the  tlieosophic 
Gnostics,  to  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  in  general. 
The  arguments  which  they  drew  from  them  are  presented  to 
view  in  the  writings  of  their  opponents,  especially  of  Tertul- 
lian.  From  those  books  they  derived  their  knowledge  of 
Christ  and  of  Christianity.  It  does  not  appear  that  they 
made  a  pretence  to  any  exclusive  spiritual  discernment,  or 
that  they  relied  on  any  secret  tradition.  It  does  appear  that 
they  made  no  use  of  any  other  history  of  Christ  besides  the 
Gospel  of  Luke.  No  apocryphal  gospel  is  said  to  have  been 
extant  among  them.  They  are  never  charged  with  having 
rested  their  system,  wholly  or  in  part,  on  any  such  gospel. 
But,  had  there  been  ground  for  the  charge,  it  would  undoubt- 
edly have  been  made.  The  controversy  between  them  and 
the  catholic  Christians  would  have  brought  out  such  a  fact 
wit] I  the  broadest  distinctness.  It  would  have  been,  to  say 
the  least,  as  much  insisted  upon  as  the  fact  that  they  struck 
out  some  passages  from  the  Gospel  of  Luke  and  the  Epistles 
of  Paul,  notices  of  which  are  continually  recurring  in  the 
writings  of  their  opponents.  Those  passages  the  Marcionites 
rejected,  and  they  disavowed  the  authority  of  the  other  three 
Gospels,  —  not  on  the  ground  that  they  were  not  genuine, 
but   because,  believing  them   to  be  genuine,  they  believed 

22 


338  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

their  authors   to  be  under  the  Influence  of  Jewish  preju- 
dices. 

But  were  those  which  have  been  mentioned  the  only  means 
that  the  Gnostics  made  use  of  to  find  support  for  their  systems 
in  the  real  or  supposed  teaching  of  Christ?  Had  they  not,  as 
has  been  imagined,  gospels  of  their  own,  presenting  a  view  of 
his  ministry  and  instructions,  different  from  that  contained 
in  the  catholic  gospels ;  —  accounts  of  Christ,  which  they  pre- 
ferred and  opposed  to  those  given  by  the  evangelists  ?  Every 
one  has  heard  of  apocryphal  and  Gnostic  gospels. 

As  regards  the  Marcionites,  these  questions  have  been 
answered.  It  is  evident  that  they  had  no  such  gospels  or 
gospel.  Those  theosophic  Gnostics,  who  adopted  the  means 
that  have  been  explained  of  reconciling  their  doctrines  with 
Christianity,  could,  likewise,  have  had  no  such  gospels.  It 
has  appeared,  not  only  in  the  present  chapter,  but  through- 
out this  work,  that  their  systems,  equally  with  the  faith  of 
the  catholic  Christians,  were  founded  on  the  common  account 
of  Christ's  ministry.  In  their  reasonings, '  they  constantly 
referred  to  the  Gospels.  They  therefore  could  have  received 
as  of  authority  no  history  of  his  ministry  which  varied  essen- 
tially from  those  Gospels.  Whether  they  had  any  other 
histories  of  his  ministry,  which  did  not  vary  essentially  from 
the  Gospels,  is  an  unimportant  question,  so  far  as  it  regards 
the  main  purpose  which  we  have  in  view.  For,  if  those 
histories  proceeded  from  authors  who  wrote  from  independent 
sources  of  information,  they  would  serve,  by  their  agreement, 
to  confirm  the  accounts  of  the  catholic  Gospels;  while,  if 
they  were  merely  founded  on  those  Gospels,  or  on  some  one 
of  them,  they  would  serve  to  show  the  authority  which  the 
latter  had  very  early  attained. 

But  a  question  may  be  virtually  settled  without  all  the 
explanation   having  been  given  which  is  necessary  to  our 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        339 

satisfaction,  and  to  a  full  understanding  of  the  subject.  After 
all  that  has  appeared,  the  inquiry  may  still  recur,  What,  then, 
were  those  apocryphal  and  Gnostic  gospels  about  whicli  so 
much  has  been  said?  To  this  inquiry  I  propose  to  give  an 
answer  in  the  next  chapter. 


CHAPTER    YIIl. 

ON    THE    QUESTION,    WHETHER    THE    GNOSTICS    OPPOSED    TO 
THE    FOUR    GOSPELS   ANY  OTHER   WRITTEN   HISTORIES  OR 

HISTORY  OF  Christ's  ministry. 

This  question  will  lead  us  to  consider  all  those  books  that 
have  been  called  apocryphal  gospels  which  we  have  any  reason 
for  supposing  to  have  been  extant  during  the  first  two  cen- 
turies, except  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews  and  the  Gospel  of 
Marcion.  We  examine  elsewhere  the  grounds  for  believing 
that  the  former,  as  it  was  first  used  by  the  Hebrew  Chris- 
tians, was  the  Hebrew  original  of  the  Gospel  of  Matthew, 
though  its  text,  in  some  or  many  copies,  may  have  afterwards 
become  much  corrupted.*  The  latter  was  merely  the  Gos- 
pel of  Luke  mutilated  by  Marcion.  t  The  authority  of 
neither  of  these  books,  therefore,  could  be  opposed  to  that 
of  the  catholic  Gospels ;  nor  can  the  epithet  apocryphal,  with 
its  common  associations,  be  properly  applied  to  them.  No 
book  which  was  not  in  existence  till  after  the  end  of  the 
second  century,  could  have  been  used  by  the  Gnostics  as  a 
basis  for  their  opinions,  or  could,  by  any  sect  whatever,  have 
been  brought  into  competition  with  the  four  Gospels,  as  an 
original  history  of  Christ's  ministry.  All  that  is  necessary  to 
be  said  in  direct  reply  to  the  question  proposed  lies  within  a 

*  See  Note  A.,  section  iv. 

t  See  Additional  Note,  C,  in  vol.  iii,  of  the  former  editions  of  the  Genur 
ineness  of  the  Gospels:  "  On  the  Gospel  of  Marcion." 


GENUINENESS    OF   THE   GOSPELS.  341 

small  compass.  But  the  subject  of  apocryplial  gospels,  as 
well  as  that  of  apocryplial  books  in  general,  has  been  treated 
in  such  a  manner  as  necessarily  to  produce  confused  and 
erroneous  conceptions  respecting  them.  It  is  a  subject  which 
demands  explanation,  where  argument  is  not  needed  ;  and  the 
inquiry  on  which  we  are  about  to  enter  will,  through  its 
incidental  relations,  extend  much  beyond  the;  second  crntury, 
and  embrace  books  which  were  not  extant  till  long  after  that 
period.* 


*  In  respect  to  the  apocryphal  gospels,  the  modern  writer,  wliose  infornia 
tion  is  principally  relied  on,  is  Fabricius.  In  his  "  Codex  ApocrA'phiis  Novi 
Testamentl,"  he  has  given  a  full  and  accurate  account  of  all  the  passages 
relating  to  them  which  are  to  be  found  in  ancient  writers.  I  say,  "  a  full  and 
accurate  account;"  because  his  work  has  now  sustained  that  reputation 
unquestioned  for  more  than  a  century.  Fabricius,  however,  has  merely 
brought  together  a  mass  of  materials,  without  applying  them  to  the  illustra- 
tion of  any  fact  whatever.  He  has  not  arranged  the  books  which  he  treats 
of  chronologically,  with  reference  to  the  period  when  they  are  first  mentioned, 
or  •when  they  may  be  supposed  to  have  appeared.  Such  an  arrangement 
would  at  once  show,  that  far  the  greater  number  deser\'e  no  consideration 
from  any  supposable  bearing  on  the  authority  of  the  Gospels.  He  has 
arranged  them  in  the  alphabetical  order  of  their  titles,  which  tends  to  produce 
the  impression,  that  they  all  equally  deserve  attention. 

Fabricius  was  followed  by  Jones  in  the  first  two  volumes  of  his  "  New  and 
Full  Method  of  settling  the  Canonical  Authority  of  the  New  Testament  " 
But  the  principal  value  of  Jones's  work  consists  in  its  giving,  in  an  English 
dress,  the  information  to  be  found  in  Fabricius,  and  in  the  republication  of 
some  of  the  later  apocrvphal  writings  (also  published  by  Fabricius)  with 
English  translations.  He  had  no  clear  comprehension  of  his  own  purpose  in 
writing;  and  his  views  and  reasonings  only  tend  to  perplex  the  subject.  He 
follows  Fabricius  in  arranging  the  books  in  the  alphabetical  order  of  their 
titles. 

In  1832,  J.  C.  Thilo  published  the  first  volume  of  his  "Codex  Apocrj-phns 
Kovi  Testamenti,"  a  work  commenced  on  an  extensive  plan,  but  of  which 
no  other  portion  has  appeared.  The  first  volume  contains  the  later  apocry- 
phal writings,  which  had  previously  been  published,  with  others  in  addition, 
—  all  apparently  edited  in  a  careful  and  thorough  manner,  with  rrolegomena 
and  notes.  It  contains  also  the  Gospel  of  Luke  used  by  .Marcion,  as  restiTcd 
by  Hahn,  who  has  made  Marcion's  Gospel  a  i.articular  subject  of  study. 

I  shall  refer  to  the  three  works  which  I  have  mentioned,  by  tlie  names  of 
their  respective  authors.    The  copy  of  Fabricius  which  I  use  is  of  the  second 


342  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

I  begin  by  stating  the  most  important  considerations  re- 
specting the  question  proposed  ;  and  I  hope  to  be  excused  for 
some  repetition  in  hereafter  recalling  attention  to  them  with 
reference  to  different  writings. 

Of  the  controversy  carried  on  by  the  catholic  Christians 
with  the  Valentinians  and  the  Marcionites,  we  have,  as  has 
been  seen,  abundant  remains.  The  opinions  and  arguments 
of  those  heretics  are  brought  forward  in  order  to  be  confuted ; 
and  though  we  may  not  regard  them  as  fully  and  fairly 
stated,  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  any 
striking  peculiarity  in  their  opinions,  or  any  main  topic  of 
their  reasoning,  has  been  2:)assed  over  in  silence.  If  they  had 
opposed  other  histories  of  Christ  to  the  four  Gospels,  if  they 
had  relied  for  the  support  of  their  systems  on  accounts  of  his 
ministry  different  from  those  we  now  possess,  we  should  find 
frequent  notices  of  the  fact.  If  they  and  the  catholic  Chris- 
tians had  been  at  issue  on  the  question,  which  among  dis- 
cordant histories  of  Christ  was  to  be  received  as  authentic, 
this  would  necessarily  have  been  the  main  point  in  contro- 
versy, the  question  to  be  settled  before  all  others.  We  find 
in  the  case  of  the  Marcionites,  that  their  confining  themselves 
to  the  use  of  a  mutilated  copy  of  Luke's  Gospel  is  a  circum- 
stance continually  presented  to  view  ;  and  we  have  particular 
notices  of  the  use  which  other  heretics  made  of  a  few  passages 
relating  to  Christ,  not  found  in  the  evangelists.  The  fathers 
were  eager  to  urge  against  the  Gnostics  the  charges  of  cor- 
rupting and  contemning  the  Scriptures,  and  of  fabricating 
apocryphal  writings.  Had  there  been  occasion  to  make  it, 
they  would  not  have  passed  over  what  in  their  view  would 
have  been  a  far  graver  allegation,  that  the  Gnostics  pretended 
to  set  up  other  histories  of  Christ  in  opposition  to  those  re- 
edition,  printed  in  1719,  in  three  parts.  That  of  Jones  is  of  tlie  Oxford  edition, 
printed  in  1798. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  843 

ceived  by  the  great  body  of  Christians.  Such  a  faot,  from  iU 
very  nature,  neither  would  nor  could  have  remained  unno- 
ticed. Ample  evidence  of  it  must  have  come  (hnvn  to 
us;  and,  if  no  evidence  is  to  be  found,  we  may  conclude 
without  hesitation,  that  the  Gnostics  made  no  pretence  to 
having  more  authentic  histories  of  Christ  than  the  Gospels. 

What,  then,  is  the  state  of  the  case  ?  I  answer,  in  the 
first  place,  that' Irenaeus  and  Tertullian  were  the  two  prin- 
cipal writers  against  the  Gnostics,  and  from  their  works  it 
does  not  appear  that  the  Valentinians,  the  Marcionites,  or 
any  other  Gnostic  sect,  adduced,  in  support  of  their  opinions, 
a  single  narrative  relating  to  the  public  ministry  of  Christ, 
besides  what  is  found  in  the  Gospels.  .  It  does  not  ai)pcar 
that  they  ascribed  to  him  a  single  sentence  of  any  imaginable 
importance,  which  the  evangelists  have  not  transmitted.  It 
does  not  appear  that  any  sect  appealed  to  the  authority  of  any 
history  of  his  public  ministry,  besides  the  Gosj)cls,  except 
so  far  as  the  Marcionites,  in  their  use  of  an  imperfect  copy 
of  St.  Luke's  Gospel,  may  be  regarded  as  forming  a  verbal 
exception  to  this  remark.  The  question,  then,  which  we 
have  proposed  for  consideration,  would  seem  to  be  settled. 
The  Gnostics  did  not  oppose  any  other  history  of  Christ 
to  the  catholic  Gospels.  Had  they  done  so,  it  is  altogether 
incredible  that  the  fact  should  not  have  been  conspicuous 
throughout  the  controversial  writini^s  of  Irena3us  and  Tertul- 
lian. 

But  what,  then,  were  those  ancient  books  which  have  been 
called  "apocryphal  gospels"?  I  answer,  that,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrew^s,  the  Gospel  of  ISIarcion, 
and  a  narrative  which  Tatian  formed  out  of  the  four  evange- 
lists, it  is  not  probable  that  any  one  of  them  was  a  professed 
history  of  Christ's  ministry.  The  main  evidence  of  this  fact 
will  appear  from  a  particular  examination  of  the  accounts  which 
have  been  given  of  them.  But  it  may  be  here  observed,  that 
the  name  "  gospel,"  signifying  in   its   primary  meaning  "  a 


344  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

joyful  message,"  "glad  news,"  was  given  as  a  title  to  the 
worlvs  of  the  evangelists,  because  they  contained  an  account 
of  the  joyful  message  which  Christ  gave  from  heaven  to 
men.  It  but  indirectly  denoted  their  character  as  histories 
of  his  ministry.  The  name  "  gospel "  has  ever  been  used  to 
signify  the  whole  scheme  of  Christianity  ;  and  a  book,  con- 
taining the  views  of  its  writer  concerning  this  system,  or  the 
views  ascribed  by  him  to  a  particular  apostle,  might  hence  be 
entitled  his  gospel,  or  denominated  by  him  the  gospel  of  that 
apostle.  There  was  a  book  in  common  use  among  the 
Manichseans,  called  a  gospel,  which,  as  Cyril  of  Jerusalem 
expressly  mentions,  contained  no  account  of  the  actions  of 
Christ.*  In  later  times,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  a  book  was  published  by  Dr.  Arthur  Bury,  which 
he  entitled  "  The  Naked  Gospel."  Another  work  appeared 
about  the  same  time  in  Germany,  which  was  called  "  The 
Eternal  Gospel ; "  and  another  with  the  same  title  was  pro- 
duced in  the  thirteenth  century.f  It  is  not  improbable,  like- 
wise, that  the  fathers  may  have  used  the  term  "  gospel "  in 
the  same  way  in  which  it  has  been  used  by  controvertists 
in  modern  times,  when  they  have  charged  their  opponents 
with  teaching  "  another  gospel."  There  is  a  French  book 
entitled  "  The  New  Gospel  of  Cardinal  Pallavicini,  revealed 
by  him  in  his  History  of  the  Council  of  Trent ;  "  J  Scioppius, 
in  one  of  his  letters,  talks  of  "  the  fifth  gospel  of  Luther  ;  "  § 
and  the  Jesuit  Rene  Rapin  published  against  the  Jansenists  a 
work  which  lie  called  "  The  Gospel  of  the  Jansenists."  || 
Thus  in  ancient  times  the  charge  of  teaching  a  new  gospel 
might  occasion  the  title  "  gospel "  to  be  given  to  some  book 
by  which  it  was  not  assumed ;  or  even  lead  to  the  false 

*  It  is  ascribed  by  him  to  Scythianus  as  its  author.    Catachesis,  vi.  §  13, 
p.  92. 

t  Fabricius,  i.  337*,  338.  J  Ibid.,  i.  339,  note. 

§  La  Roche's  Memoirs  of  Literature,  vol.  ii.  p.  252. 
II  Fabricius,  i.  339,  note. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  345 

supposition,  that  there  was  some  book  which  hore  that  title, 
or  to  which  it  might  be  applied,  when  no  such  book  existed. 
Among  what  have  been  called  the  Gnostic  gospels,  we  find, 
as  I  have  formerly  mentioned,  one  under  the  name  of  "The 
Gospel  of  Eve,"  probably  used  by  the  Ophians,  which  pro- 
fessed to  contain  that  wisdom  which  Eve  learned  from  the 
Serpent.  This  gospel,  therefore,  was  not  a  history  of  the 
ministry  of  Christ*  Nor  can  we  reasonably  suppose  that 
this  character  was  ascribed  to  another,  said  to  be  in  use 
among  the  Cainites,  called  "  The  Gospel  of  Judas,"  meaning 
Judas  Iscariot.f  Epiphanius  mentions  a  book  as  in  use 
among  Gnostics,  which  he  says  was  named  "  The  Gospel  of 
Perfection."  $  Its  title,  and  the  brief  account  which  he 
gives  of  it,  imply  that  it  was  not  an  historical  book,  if  indeed 
any  such  book  existed.  These  remarks  are  merely  prelimi- 
nary. As  we  proceed,  I  trust  it  will  appear  that  there  is  no 
ground  for  believing  that  any  work  which  may  properly  be 
called  a  Gnostic  gospel  was  a  professed  history  of  Christ's  min- 
istry, or  that  any  history  of  his  ministiy  was  in  circulation 
during  the  second  century,  among  either  the  catholic  Chris' 
tians  or  the  Gnostics,  besides  the  catholic  Gospels,  and  books, 
like  those  of  Marcion  and  Tatian,  founded  upon  one  or  all  of 
them. 

With  this  understanding  of  what  might  be  meant  by  the 
title  "  gospel,"  let  us  next  inquire  what  we  may  find  respect- 
ing Gnostic  or  apocryphal  gospels  in  Irenaius  and  Tertul- 
lian. 

Tertullian  often  mentions  the  mutilated  copy  of  Luke's 
Gospel  used  by  the  Marcionites.  But  this,  as  I  have  said, 
should  not  be  spoken  of  as  an  apocryphal  gospel.     He  no- 


*  See  p.  279,  seqq.  t  Irenseus,  lib.  i.  c  31,  §  1,  p.  HI 

t  Haeres.,  xxvi.  §  2,  p.  83. 


346  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

where,  throughout  his  writings,  ascribes  to  the  Gnostics  the 
use  of  any  proper  Gnostic  gospel,  in  any  sense  of  the  term 
''  gospel."  He  nowhere  speaks  of  any  apocryphal  gospel 
whatever,  or  intimates  a  knowledge  of  the  existence  of  such 
a  book.  The  conclusion  is  unavoidable.  Either  he  did  not 
know  of  the  existence  of  any  such  book,  or,  if  he  did,  he  re- 
garded it  as  too  obscure  and  unimportant  to  deserve  notice. 
But  neither  could  have  been  the  case  in  respect  to  any  book 
which  the  Gnostics  brought  into  competition  with  the  Gos- 
pels. 

Once,  and  once  only,  Irenaeus  speaks  of  what  he  calls  a 
*'  gospel,"  as  used  by  the  Yalentinians,  in  addition  to  the  four 
Gospels.  He  thus  expresses  himself  concerning  it :  "  The 
followers  of  Valentinus,  throwing  aside  all  fear,  and  bringing 
forward  their  own  compositions,  boast  that  they  have  more 
gospels  than  there  are.  For  they  have  proceeded  to  such 
boldness  as  to  entitle  a  book  not  long  since  written  by  them 
*  The  True  Gospel,'  [yerhally  "  The  Gospel  of  the  Truth,"] 
a  book  which  agrees  in  no  respect  with  the"  Gospels  of  the 
apostles,  so  that  not  even  the  Gospel  can  exist  among  them 
without  blasphemy.  For  if  that  which  is  brought  forward 
by  them  be  the  true  Gospel,  but  differ  at  the  same  time  from 
those  Gospels  which  have  been  handed  down  to  us  by  the 
apostles  (those  who  wish  may  learn  in  what  manner  from  the 
writings  themselves),  then  it  is  evident  that  the  Gospel 
handed  down  by  the  apostles  is  not  the  true  Gospel."  * 

The  author  of  the  Addition  to  Tertullian,  probably  copy- 

*  "  Si  enim  quod  ab  iis  profertur  veritatis  est  Evangelium,  dissiniile  est 
autem  hoc  illis  [sc.  Evangeliis]  quae  ab  Apostolis  nobis  tradita  sunt;  (qui 
volunt  possunt  discere  quemadmoduni  ex  ipsis  scripturis:)  ostenditur  jana 
nou  esse  id  quod  ab  Apostolis  traditum  est  veritatis  Evangelium."  —  Lib.  ili. 
c.  11,  §  9,  p.  192.  This  difficult  passage  may,  perhaps,  be  thus  arranged  with 
a  change  of  pointing,  a  parenthesis,  and  the  printing  of  scripturis  without  an 
initial  capital.  But  no  ditference  of  arrangement  or  translation  is  important 
ae  regards  the  present  subject. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  347 

iiig  IrencEus,  says,  "Valentinus  likewise  has  his  gospi'l 
besides  ours."*  By  Valentinus  is  here,  I  ])resuine,  ineanl  ihe 
Valentinians  ;  sects  being  not  unfre(|uently  by  the  latiiers  tlius 
designated  from  their  leaders.  These  are  the  only  notices  to 
be  found  of  the  Valentinians,  as  a  sect,  having  used  any 
other  book  called  a  gospel  besides  the  canonical  Gospel.;. 

It  is  evident  from  the  passage  of  Irenajus,  as  well  as  froiD 
much  other  equally  unequivocal  testimony,  that  the  Valentin- 
ians received  the  four  Gospels  in  common  use.  The  charge 
against  them  is,  that  they  had  more  gospels  than  the  catholic 
Christians,  that  is,  one  more.  This  additional  gospel,  there 
fore,  could  have  contained  no  history  of  Christ's  ministry  at 
variance  with  that  in  the  four  Gos})els,  which  they  also  admit- 
ted. But  (if  such  a  gospel  existed)  there  is  no  })rol)al)ility 
that  it  was  an  historical  book  of  any  sort.  It  was  a  gospel,  we 
may  i-easonably  presume,  of  the  kind  before  described,  contain- 
infj  an  account  of  what  its  author  believed  to  be  the  doctrines 
of  the  Gospel.  If  it  had  been  a  history  presenting  any  addi- 
tions to  the  narratives  of  the  evangelists,  adopted  by  the 
Valentinians  to  support  their  opinions,  they  would  have 
quoted  it  for  this  purpose  ;  and  of  the  additional  accounts, 
and  of  the  arguments  founded  upon  them,  we  should  have  had 
abundant  notices  in  the  writings  of  their  opponents,  and  in 
the  fragments  still  extant  of  their  own.  But  there  are  no 
such  notices  whatever. 

Such  is  the  state  of  the  case,  if  the  Valentinians  really  had 
among  them  a  book  with  the  title  supposed.  But,  though 
the  account  of  Irena^us,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  the  existence  of 
the  book,  may  be  correct,  there  is  reason  for  doubting  it  alto- 
gether. If  he  has  fiillen  into  a  mistake,  it  is  one  that  may 
easily  be  explained.  The  Valentinians,  we  may  suppose,  pro- 
fessed that  they  alone  had  "  the  true  Gospel,"  meaning  that 
they  alone  held  the  true  doctrines  of  the  Gospel ;  and  some 


*  De  Prescript.  Haeretic,  c.  49,  p.  222. 


348  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

of  their  opponents  misunderstood  them  as  meaning  that  they 
possessed  a  book  with  that  title.  Had  they  really,  as  Ire- 
nseus  says,  boasted  of  possessing  such  a  gospel,  it  must  have 
been  an  important  book  in  reference  to  the  exposition  of  their 
doctrines.  But,  as  I  have  said,  it  is  nowhere  referred  to 
by  Irenaeus  himself,  except  in  the  passage  just  quoted.  It  is 
mentioned  by  no  subsequent  writer  except  the  author  of  the 
Addition  to  Tertullian,  who  probably  took  his  notice  of  it 
from  Irenceus.  Tertullian  himself,  who  was  well  acquainted 
with  the  works  of  Irenjeus,  affords  proof,  by  his  silence  con- 
cerning it  in  his  writings  against  the  Valentinians,  that  he 
was  not  aware  of  its  existence,  or  regarded  it  as  not  worth 
notice.  It  follows,  therefore,  either  that  Irenseus  was  in 
error  in  supposing  that  there  was  such  a  book,  or  that  he 
was  in  error  in  supposing  that  the  Valentinians,  generally, 
attached  any  importance  to  it. 

Irenaeus  gives  one  other  title  (before  mentioned),  purport- 
ing to  be  that  of  an  apocryphal  gospel  which  he  supposed 
to  be  in  existence,  and  to  be  called  "  The  Gospel  of  Judas," 
that  is,  of  Judas  Iscariot.  He  represents  it  as  having  been 
used  by  the  Cainites.  According  to  him,  these  heretics  w'ere 
distinguished  by  their  abominable  immorality,  by  their  de- 
grading the  character  of  the  Creator,  and  by  their  celebrating 
stich  personages  in  the  Old  Testament  as  Cain,  Esau,  Korah, 
and  the  Sodomites.  They  regarded  them  as  allied  to  them- 
selves by  the  possession  of  the  same  spiritual  nature,  and  as 
having  been,  on  account  of  this  nature,  persecuted  by  the 
Creator.  They  apparently  considered  Cain  as  the  head  of 
the  spiritual  among  men.  He  was  from  "  the  higher  power  " 
{a  superiore  principalitate) .  The  truth,  on  these  subjects, 
they  said,  was  known  to  Judas  alone ;  and  in  consequence  of 
this  knowledge,  "  he  performed  the  mystery  of  delivering  up 
his  master ;  and  thus  through  Judas  all  things  earthly  and 
heavenly   [all   the  works   of  the    Creator]   were   dissolved. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  349 

And  they  produce,"  adds  Irenoeus,  "a  fabrication  to  tliis 
effect,  calling  it  <  The  Gospel  of  Judas.'  "  *  The  account  of 
Irena^us  is  repeated  by  Epiphanius  and  Thcodoret. 

If  there  were  such  a  book  as  Irena^us  names,  there  is  no 
ground  for  believing  it  to  have  been  a  fabricated  history  of 
Christ's  ministry.  But  it  is  highly  improbable  that  any  sect 
or  any  book  existed,  such  as  Ireniuus  describes.  It  is  a 
moral  absurdity  to  suppose  that  there  was  a  Christian  sect 
which  held  such  doctrines,  and  were  guilty  of  such  vices,  as 
he  imputes  to  the  Cainites;  that  there  were  Christians 
avowing  Cain  to  be  their  spiritual  head,  claiming  alliance 
with  the  Sodomites,  and  taking  Judas  for  their  religious 
teacher.  Nor  would  there  be  much  less  absurdity  in  imagin- 
ing that  any  pseudo-Christian  Gnostics  exposed  themselves 
in  this  barefaced  manner  to  infamy  and  detestation  ;  that  they 
claimed  to  be  on  a  level  with  the  worst  characters  in  the  Okl 
and  New  Testaments,  and  avowed  doctrines  at  once  so  mon- 
strous, and  so  intimately  connected  with  Judaism  and  Chris- 
tianity. Without  supposing  the  existence  of  any  such  sect,  it 
is  not  difficult  to  explain  the  origin  of  the  stories  concerning 
it,  in  connection  with  the  orimn  of  the  name.  We  have  good 
reason  to  think  that  the  name  "  Nicolaitans "  was  .derived 
from  passages  in  the  New  Testament ;  and  especially  from 
two  in  the  Apocalypse,  in  which  it  is  applied  to  those  who, 
having  professed  themselves  Christians,  indulged  in  licen- 
tiousness.f  That  of  "  Cainites,"  we  may  suppose,  was  de- 
rived from  a  passage  (formerly  quoted)  in  the  Ej)istle  of 
Jude,  in  which  certain  individuals  are  thus  spoken  of: 
"  Woe  for  them  !  for  they  have  walked  in  the  way  of  Cain, 
and  given  themselves  up  to  deceive,  like  Balaam,  for  pay, 
and  brought  destruction  on  themselves  through  rebellion,  like 
Korah."  $     The  name  was  applied  to  those  otherwise  called 


*  Cont.  H^eres.,  lib.  i.  c.  31,  pp.  112,  113.  t  Sec  pp.  252,  253. 

X  Jude,  ver.  11.  — Seep.  252. 


350  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

Nicolai'tans,  as  we  are  informed  by  Tertullian  in  the  only 
passage  in  which  he  mentions  it  *  But  there  was  probably 
still  another  occasion  of  its  use.  The  theosophic  Gnostics 
considered  Seth  as  the  representative  and  head  of  the  spir- 
itual among  men,  and,  in  consequence,  appear  to  have  some- 
times given  themselves  the  name  of  Sethians.f  But  the 
assumption  of  this  name  might  naturally  provoke  the  more 
angry  among  their  opponents  to  apply  the  opposite  name  of 
Cainites  to  those  Gnostics,  at  least,  whom  they  regarded  as 
guilty  of  gross  vices.  The  name  being  given,  a  system  of 
doctrines  corresponding  to  it  would  be  easily  fabricated,  out 
of  exaggerations,  misconceptions,  and  false  reports ;  and  one 
may  find  little  difficulty  in  supposing  that  the  assertion,  that 
those  to  whom  it  was  applied  were  traitors  to  Christ,  teaching 
not  his  gospel,  but  the  gospel  of  Judas  Iscariot,  gave  occasion 
to  the  notion  that  they  had  a  book  with  that  title.  If  there 
were  no  sect  holding  the  doctrines  imputed  to  the  Cainites, 
there  was  no  gospel  in  existence  conformed  to  those  doc 
trines.  Should  it,  however,  still  be  thought  that  there  may 
have  been  such  a  book,  it  is  to  be  recollected  that  it  must 
have  been  a  book  not  used  by  Christians,  of  no  authority, 
and,  as -appears  from  the  little  attention  it  received,  of  no 
notoriety. 

Such  is  all  the  information  concerning  Gnostic  or  apocry- 
phal gospels  afforded  by  the  two  principal  writers  against  the 
Gnostics.  Tertullian,  throughout  his  works,  mentions  no 
such  gospel.  Irenteus  gives  two  titles  supposed  by  him  to 
belong  to  such  books.  But  it  is  very  improbable  that  there 
was  any  such  book  as  "  The  Gospel  of  Judas."  The  exist- 
ence of  "  The  True  Gospel,"  also,  is  doubtful.     But,  if  there 

*  Tertullian,  after  referring  to  the  Nicolaitans  mentioned  in  the  Apoca- 
lypse, says:  "Sunt  et  nunc  alii  Nicolaltae;  Caiana  haeresis  dicitur." — De 
Praescript.  Hgeretic,  c.  33,  p.  214. 

t  See  p.  174,  note;  and  p.  288. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  351 

were  a  book  bearing  that  title,  we  cannot  reasonably  suppose 
it  to  have  been  a  history  of  Christ's  ministry  at  variance  with 
the  four  Gospels. 

The  Valentinians  and  Marcionites  were  the  two  principal 
sects  of  the  Gnostics,  and  probably  comprehended  far  the 
greater  part  of  their  number.  Excepting  the  story  of  Ire- 
nceus  concerning  "  The  True  Gospel,"  there  is  no  charge 
against  either  sect,  that  they  appealed  to  apocryphal  gospels ; 
unless  that  name  be  given  to  Marcion's  defective  copy  of 
Luke's  Gospel.  Next  to  those  two  sects,  the  Basil idians 
appear,  for  some  reason  or  other,  to  have  been  regarded 
as  the  most  important ;  and  we  will  now  attend  to  what  is 
said  of  their  use  of  an  apocryphal  gospel. 

Of  any  work  called  a  "  gospel,"  different  from  the  four 
Gospels,  which  was  in  use  among  the  Basilidians,  there  is  no 
mention  in  Irena^us  or  in  Clement  of  Alexandria,  who  are 
the  principal  sources  of  all  the  information  concerning  them 
to  which  any  credit  can  be  attached.  Nor  is  such  a  work 
mentioned  by  Epiphanius,  who  in  general  brought  together 
all  that  he  could  find,  true  or  false,  to  the  prejudice  of  the 
heretics;  nor  by  Eusebius,  among  the  apocryphal  writings 
which  he  enumerates ;  nor  by  Theodoret,  who  compiled  his 
accounts  of  the  heretics  from  many  earlier  authors.  Such 
a  book  is  first  named  by  the  author  of  the  Homilies  on  Luke, 
which  have  been  ascribed  to  Origen.  That  writer  speaks  of 
it  in  a  passage  in  which  he  gives  the  titles,  real  or  supposed, 
of  various  apocryphal  gospels,  to  be  hereafter  noticed.  He  is 
commenting  on  the  words  with  which  Luke  begins  his  Gos- 
pel,—  "Since  many  have  undertaken  to  arrange  a  narrative 
of  the  events  accomplished  among  us."  He  regards  the  term 
"undertaken"  as  perhaps  implying  a  censure  on  the  works 
referred  to  by  Luke.  The  four  evangelists,  he  says,  did  not 
**  undertake ; "   they  wrote  under  the  impulse  of  the   Holy 


352  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

Spirit.  But  others  (since  their  day)  had  "  undertaken,"  and 
among  them  "  Basilides,"  he  says,  "  had  the  boldness  to  write 
a  '  Gospel  according  to  Basilides.' "  *  The  whole  passage, 
with  this  notice  of  a  gospel  ascribed  to  Basilides,  was  imitated 
by  Ambrose  f  and  Jerome  $  toward  the  end  of  the  fourth 
century. 

Such  is  the  evidence  that  a  gospel  was  written  by  Basilides. 
It  consists  in  the  assertion  of  an  unknown  writer,  who  must 
have  lived  more  than  a  century  after  the  death  of  Basilides, 
and  the  repetition  of  this  assertion  by  two  other  writers,  more 
than  two  centuries  after  that  event.  This  evidence  is  of  no 
weight  to  counterbalance  the  great  improbability,  that  such 
a  gospel  should  not  have  been  taken  notice  of  by -the  earlier 
opponents  of  Basilides,  nor  by  any  writer  of  a  later  age  who 
has  professed  to  give  an  account  of  his  doctrines  and  sect. 
The  fathers  were  very  ready  to  charge  the  heretics  with  using 
books  of  no  authority,  apocryphal  books.  Why  should  we 
not  have  heard  as  much  of  a  gospel  written  by  Basilides, 
as  of  the  defective  Gospel  of  Luke  used  by  the  Marcionites  ? 

The  notion  that  Basilides  wrote  a  gospel  probably  arose 
from  the  fact,  that  he  wrote  a  commentary  on  the  Gospels. 
In  this  he  of  course  explained  his  views  of  Christianity  ;  and 
these  views,  or  the  book  in  which  they  were  contained,  might 
be  called  his  gospel.  Agrippa  Castor,  who,  according  to 
Eusebius,  was  a  contemporary  of  Basilides,  and  whose  "  most 
able  confutation "  Eusebius  says  was  extant  in  his  time, 
apparently  knew  nothing  of  any  "  Gospel  of  Basilides,"  but 
did  mention  that  he  "wrote  twenty-four  books  on  the  Gos- 
pel," meaning  by  that  term  the  four  Gospels.  From  the 
twenty-third  book  of  this  Commentary  Clement  of  Alexandria 
quotes  several  passages  in  connection.  §    The  Commentary  of 

*  Homil.  i   in  Lucam.     Origen,  0pp.  iii.  933. 
t  Expositio  Eviing.  Lucte,  lib.  i.  0pp.  i.  1265,  ed.  Benedict, 
t  Comment,  in  iMatth.  Proem.,  0pp.  tom.  iv.  par>5  i.  p.  2. 
§  Stroniat.,  iv.  §  12,  pp.  599,  600. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  353 

Basilides  is  one  among  the  decisive  proofs  of  tlie  respect  in 
which  the  Gospels  were  held  by  the  theosophic  Gnostics. 

If  the  account  of  the  author  of  the  Homilies  on  Luko  were 
founded  on  the  existence  of  any  work,  this  Commentary,  in 
all  probability,  was  the  work,  which,  having  lieard  of  it  and 
not  having  seen  it,  he  called  "  The  Gospel  of  Basilides." 
But,  were  there  another  book  bearing  that  title,  it  could  not 
liave  been  a  history  of  Christ's  ministry  at  variance  with  our 
present  Gospels.  Of  such  a  book  we  should  have  had  far 
other  information  than  an  incidental  mention  of  its  title  first 
made  more  than  a  century  after  the  death  of  its  author. 

In  what  precedes,  we  have  seen  the  whole  amount  of  infor- 
mation concerning  apocryphal  gospels,  the  use  of  which  is 
attributed  to  either  of  the  three  principal  Gnostic  sects.  This 
information  consists  of  two  stories,  one  concerning  "The  True 
Gospel,"  and  the  other  concerning  "The  Gospel  of  Basilides." 
It  is  doubtful,  as  we  have  seen,  whether  any  books  existed 
bearing  those  titles  ;  but,  did  such  books  exist,  they  must  have 
been  works  of  no  celebrity,  not  current  among  the  Gnostics, 
and  not  regarded  by  them  as  of  authority.  No  writer  pro- 
duces an  example  of  their  drawing  an  argument  from  either 
of  them,  or  of  their  appealing  to  them  for  any  purpose  what- 
ever. 

We  have  seen,  likewise,  that,  of  the  two  principal  writers 
against  the  Gnostics,  Tertullian  makes  no  mention  of  apocry- 
phal gospels ;  and  we  have  considered  what  is  the  amount  of 
evidence  which  Irenaeus  aiFords  of  their  existence  and  use. 

Next  to  Irenoeus  and  Tertullian,  their  contemporary,  Clem- 
ent of  Alexandria,  is  our  most  important  authority  concern- 
ing the  Gnostics.  He  was  a  man  of  extensive  information,  a 
wide  reader,  quoting  from  a  great  variety  of  authors,  and 
acquainted  with  the  writings  of  the  principal  theos()[)hic 
Gnostics,  whose  words  he  often  cites.     From  him,  therefore, 

23 


354  EVIDENCES    OF   THE 

if  from  any  one,  we  should  expect  authentic  notices  of  apocry- 
plial  gospels  ;  and,  accordingly,  we  do  find  mention  of  one 
such  book,  which,  there  is  no  doubt,  really  existed.  It  was 
called  "  The  Gospel  according  to  the  Egyptians." 

This  book  has,  in  modern  times,  been  particularly  remarked. 
It  has  been  thought  by  many  to  have  been  a  history  of  Christ's 
ministry,  used  by  the  Gnostics  ;  and  some  have  even  imagined 
that  it  was  one  of  those  gospels  referred  to  by  Luke  in  the 
introduction  to  his  own.*     The  facts  concerning  it  are  these. 

Clement,  in  reasoning  against  those  heretics  who  denied  the 
lawfulness  of  marriage,  gives  the  following  pa-sage,  as  adduced 
by  them  in  support  of  their  doctrine.  "  When  Salome  asked 
the  Lord,  *  How  long  death  should  have  power,'-  he  replied, 
*  As  long  as  you  women  bear  children.' "  t  This,  Clement 
asserts,  is  only  a  declaration  that  death  is  the  natural  conse- 
quence of  birth.  Considering  the  passage,  therefore,  as  hav- 
ing no  force  to  prove  the  point  for  which  it  was  adduced, 
namely,  our  Lord's  disapproval  of  marriage,  he  does  not 
remark  upon  the  question  of  its  authenticity,  nor  mention  in 
this  place  from  what  book  it  was  taken.  -  But  a  few  pages 
after  he  says,  "•  But  those  who,  through  their  specious  conti- 
nence, oppose  themselves  to  the  creation  of  God,  cite  what 
was  uttered  to  Salome,  of  which  I  have  before  taken  notice. 
The  words  are  found,  as  I  suppose,  in  the  Gospel  according 
to  the  Egyptians.  For  they  affirm  that  our  Saviour  himself 
said,  'I  have  come  to  destroy  the  works  of  the  female  ;'  —  by 
Hhe  female'  meaning  lust,  by  'the  works'  generation  and 
corruption."  t 

Clement  explains  the  words  ascribed  to  Jesus  in  a  different 
sense  from  that  in  which  they  were  understood  by  those 
against  whom  he  wrote.  It  is  unnecessary  to  give  his  re- 
marks.    Toward  the  conclusion  of  them  he  asks, — 

*  The  opinions  of  modem  authors  respecting  it  are  collected  by  Jones,  i. 
201,  seqq. 

t  Stroraat.,  iii.  §  6,  p.  532.  }  Ibid.,  §  9,  pp.  539,  540. 


GENUINENESS    OF   THE   GOSPELS.  855 

"  But  do  not  those  who  prefer  any  thing  to  walking  hy  tliat 
gospel  rule  which  is  according  to  the  truth,  also  allege  what 
follows  of  the  conversation  with  Salome?  For,  upon  her 
saying,  '  I  have  done  well  in  not  bearing  children,'  as  if  there 
were  something  improper  in  it,  the  Lord  replied,  '  Eat  of 
every  herb,  but  of  that  which  is  bitter  eat  not ; '  by  wliich 
words  he  signifies  that  celibacy  or  marriage  is  a  matter  within 
our  own  choice,  neither  being  enforced  by  any  prohibition  of 
the  other."  * 

I  proceed  to  the  last  passage  whii-ii  ne  quotes.  He  is 
here  arguing  particularly  against  a  writer  named  Julius 
Cassian. 

"  Cassian  [in  defending  his  doctrine  respecting  celibacy] 
says,  Upon  Salome's  asking  when  those  things  should  be 
known  concerning  which  she  inquired,  the  Lord  answered, 
*  When  ye  shall  tread  under  foot  the  garment  of  your  shame, 
and  when  the  two  become  one,  and  the  male  with  the  female 
neither  male  nor  female.'  "  f 

By  the  garments  of  shame,  that  is,  the  garments  of  skin, 
which,  according  to  the  story  in  Genesis,  God  made  for  Adam 
and  Eve,  Cassian,  in  common  with  other  ancient  allegorists, 
understood  human  bodies,  the  flesh,  the  seat  of  corruption. 
The  body  was  the  garment  of  shame  which  he  believed  was 
to  be  trodden  under  foot,  t 

Part  of  the  words  ascribed  to  Ciirist  in  the  passage  last 
quoted  are  likewise  given  as  a  "  saying  of  the  Lord,"  without 
reference  to  any  book,  in  a  spurious  work  called  the  "  Second 
Epistle  of  Clement,"  of  Rome.  § 

The  words  in  the  passage  first  quoted  H  occur  in  the  Doc- 


*  Stromat.,  iii.  §  9,  p.  541.  t  Ibid.,  §  13,  p.  553. 

X  See  the  context  of  the  passage  in  Clement,  p.  554,  and  Beausobre,  His- 
toire  du  Manicheisme,  torn.  ii.  pp.  135,  136. 

5  The  words  are  found  at  the  end  of  the  fragment  of  this  epistle  which 


remams. 

II  See  before,  p.  354. 


856  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

trina  Orientalis,*  as  follows :  "  When  the  Saviour  said  to 
Salome,  '  Death  shall  continue  as  long  as  women  bear  chil- 
dren/ he  did  not  mean  to  blame  the  generation  of  children." 
The  Gnostic  writer,  who  here  quotes  the  words,  rejected,  j  ke 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  the  use  made  of  them  by  the  ascetics. 
He  supposed  them  to  have  a  mystical  meaning,  referring  to 
Achamoth. 

The  title  of  "  The  Gospel  according  to  the  Egyptians "  is 
mentioned  by  the  author  of  the  Homilies  on  Luke,  in  the 
passage  before  referred  to,  and  after  him  by  three  writers  who 
have  imitated  that  passage ;  namely,  Jerome,  Titus  Bostrensis, 
and  Theophylact.t 

Epiphanius,  in  his  article  on  the  Sabellians, 'after  saying 
that  they  make  use  of  all  the  writings  both  of  the  Old  and 
of  the  New  Testament,  selecting  passages  to  their  purpose, 
adds,  "  But  their  whole  error,  and  the  main  support  of  their 
error,  they  derive  from  certain  apocryphal  books,  particularly 
that  called  '  The  Egyptian  Gospel,'  a  name  which  some  have 
given  it.  For  in  that  there  are  many  things  to  their  purpose, 
of  an  obscure,  mystical  character,  which  are  ascribed  to  the 
Saviour;  as  if  he  himself  had  made  known  to  his  disciples 
that  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  were  the  same 
person."  $ 

An  improbable  story,  resting  solely  on  the  testimony  of 
Epiphanius,  is  not  entitled  to  credit ;  and  this  story  about  the 
Sabellians  is  altogether  improbable.  Epiphanius  does  not 
seem  to  have  known  even  the  proper  title  of  the  book  which 
he  charges  them  with  using.  He  says  that  it  was  called 
"  The  Egyptian  Gospel ; "  the  other  writers  who  mention  it 
give  it  the  title  of  "  The  Gospel  according  to  the  Egyptians." 

I  have  quoted  all  the  fragments,  and,  I  believe,  mentioned 


*  §  67,  p.  9S5.  t  Fabricius,  i.  335*,  note. 

t  Hseres.,  Ixii.  §  2,  0pp.  i.  513,  514. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  357 

all  the  notices  of  this  apocryphal  gospel  -which  liave  come 
down  to  us.  One  unaccustomed  to  such  studies  miglit  be  sur- 
prised to  see  the  hypotheses  and  assertions  that  have  been 
founded  upon  them  in  modern  times.  What  in  fact  ajipears 
is,  that  it  was  an  anonymous  book,  extant  in  tlie  second  cen- 
tury, and  probably  written  in  Egypt,  in  the  dark  and  mystical 
style  that  prevailed  in  that  country.  In  judging  of  its  noto- 
riety and  importance,  we  must  compare  the  few  writers  wlio 
recognize  its  existence  with  the  far  greater  number  to  wliom 
it  was  unknown,  or  who  were  not  led  by  any  circumstance  to 
mention  it.  It  was  a  book  of  which  we  should  have  been 
ignorant,  but  for  a  few  incidental  notices  afforded  by  writers, 
none  of  whom  give  evidence  of  having  seen  it.*  Neitlier 
Clement,  nor  any  other  writer,  speaks  of  it  as  a  Gnostic  gos- 
pel. It  does  not  appear  that  it  had  any  particular  credit  or 
currency  among  the  generality  of  the  Gnostics.  Some  asce- 
tics of  their  number,  in  maintaining  the  obligation  of  celibacy, 
argued  from  a  passage  found  in  it,  as  they  did  undoubtedly 
from  passages  found  in  the  four  Gospels ;  but  other  Gnostics, 
as  we  have  seen  from  the  Doctrina  Orientalis,  rejected  their 
interpretation.  The  Gnostics  did  not  appeal  to  it  in  support 
of  their  more  distinguishing  and  fundamental  doctrines ;  for, 
had  they  done  so,  we  should  have  been  fully  informed  of  the 
fact. 

As  this  is  the  first  apocryphal  gospel  the  former  existence 
of  which  we  have  clearly  ascertained,  the  question  arises, 
whether  it  were  or  Avere  not  a  history  of  Christ's  ministry. 


*  That  it  had  not  been  seen  by  Clement  of  Alexandria,  from  whom  our 
principal  information  concerning  it  is  derived,  appears  from  his  turns  of 
expression  in  remarking  on  the  quotations  from  it:  "The  words  are  tound, 
as  I  suppose  {olfiai),  in  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Egyptians;"  —  "  7  Ae» 
affirm,  that  the  Saviour  himself  said; "-and  where,  in  appealing  to  a  pas- 
sage  in  the  conversation  with  Salome,  as  justifying  his  own  v.ews  he  relen. 
tok  as  quoted  by  those  whom  he  is  opposing,  and  not  as  otherwise  known  to 
him,  thus,  "  Do  they  not  also  allege  what  follows  V  "    See  Jones,  i.  206. 


858  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

The  only  argument  of  any  weight  for  believing  it  to  have 
been  so  is,  that  it  contained  a  narrative  of  a  pretended  con- 
versation of  Christ  with  Salome.  But  if  it  were  not  an  his- 
torical, but  a  doctrinal,  book,  there  is  no  difficulty  in  supposing 
that  the  writer  might  find  occasion  to  insert  in  it  a  traditional 
account  of  a  discourse  of  Christ.  A  few  such  traditional  ac- 
counts of  sayings  of  our  Lord  are  found  in  other  writers  of 
the  first  three  centuries."*  As  regards  the  words  ascribed  to 
him  in  the  conversation  with  Salome,  it  is  evident  that  the 
tradition  concerning  them  was  false.  Our  Saviour  never 
expressed  himself  as  he  is  reported  to  have  done  in  the  pas- 
sages that  have  been  quoted.  The  writer  had  an  erroneous 
conception  of  his  character.  But  if  the  book  had  been  an 
historical  gospel,  this  conception  would  have  pervaded  it,  and 
would  have  been  prominent  in  many  other  particular  passages. 
A  history  of  Christ's  ministry,  so  foreign  in  its  character  from 
the  Gospels  as  this  must  have  been,  could  not  have  existed 
in  the  last  half  of  the  second  centurj^,  —  whether  it  were  a  com- 
position of  an  early  age,  or  a  fiction  of  later  times,  —  without 
having  been  an  object  of  far  greater  attention  than  that  which 
this  book  received.  Especially,  had  it  been  brought  forward 
by  any  sect  in  opposition  to  the  Gospels,  it  would  have  been 
a  primary  subject  of  discussion.  But  we  have  seen  that  the 
book  in  question  was  little  regarded  or  known.  It  could  not, 
therefore,  have  been  a  history  of  Christ's  ministry. 

This  is  the  only  apocryphal  gospel,  unless  the  Gospel 
according  to  the  Hebrews  be  regarded  as  apocryphal,  the  title 
of  which  is  mentioned  by  Clement.  According  to  his  present 
text,  he  quotes  one  other  without  giving  its  title.  But  there 
are  good  reasons  for  believing  that  his  text,  as  it  stands,  is 
corrupt,  and  that  there  was  originally  no  mention  in  it  of  a 
gospel.f 


*  See  pp.  130,  131.  —  Fabricius,  i.  321*,  seqq.     Jones,  i.  405,  seqq. 

t  Clement  (Stromat.,  v.  §  10,  p.  684)  is  treating  of  the  hidden  wisdom  on 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  359 

If  this  be  so,  then,  with  the  exception  just  mentioned  of 
the  Gospel  according  to  tlie  Hebrews,  supposing  tliat  tliis  ex- 
ception should  be  made,  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Egyptians 
is  the  only  apocryphal  book,  bearing  the  title  of  a  gos[)el,  that 
is  mentioned  by  any  writer  during  tiie  three  centuries  suc- 
ceeding our  Lord's  death,  from  which  a  single  (piotation  is 
professedly  given,  or  of  which  it  is  probable  that  a  single 
fragment  remains. 

As  I  have  said,  the  title  of  no  other  apocryphal  gospel, 
used  by  any  Gentile  Christians,  is  mentioned  by  Clement 
But  it  is  desirable  to  give  the  fullest  information  on  the  sub- 
ject which  we  are  examining ;  for,  as  I  have  before  remarked, 

•which  he  so  much  insists.  He  professes  to  quote  a  passajre  from  a  prnjthot, 
apparently  intending  Isaiah,  though  nothing  very  like  it  is  found  in  his 
■writings,  or  elsewhere  in  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  tins:  ''  Who  shall  under- 
stand the  parable  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah],  hut  the  wise  and  understanding, 
and  he  who  loves  his  Lord?"  Clement  then,  as  iiis  text  now  stands,  goes 
on  thus:  "For  it  is  in  the  power  of  few  to  understand  these  things.  For  the 
Lord,  though  not  unwilling  to  communicate,  the  prophet  says  [or,  the  Scrip- 
ture says],  declared  in  a  certain  i/.^'if,  'My  secret  is  for  me  and  the  sons 
of  my  house.'"  —  *' Ov  yap  (pdovuv,  (pr/m,  Trap^yytiXsv  6  Kvpio^  Iv  nvi 
evayyekiu"  k.  t.  X.  I  suppose  the  words  "in  a  certain  gospel  "  to  be  an 
interpolation.  The  passage  quoted  corresponds  to  what  is  found  in  some 
copies  of  the  Septuagint  at  Isa.  xxiv.  16.  (See  the  note  on  the  passage  in 
Potter's  edition  of  Clement,  where,  in  the  first  line,  "cap.  2  "  is  a  misprint 
for  "cap.  24.")  The  verb  ^t^ct/,  s^t/s,  must  have  for  its  subject,  either  the 
prophet  mentioned  immediately  before,  or  the  Scripture  (the  ellipsis  supposed 
in  the  last  case  being  not  uncommon).  But  Clement  cannot  be  imagined  to 
have  made  so  incongruous  an  assertion  as  that  "  The  prophet  says,"  or 
"The  Scripture  says,"  "that  the  Lord  [Christ]  declared  in  a  certain  gospel." 
That  he  considered  himself  as  borrowing  the  words,  "  My  secret  is  for  me 
and  my  children,"  not  from  a  certain  gospel,  but  from  Isaiah,  appears  also 
from  the  circumstance,  that,  a  few  lines  after  them,  he  gives  a  quotation  from 
Isaiah,  introducing  it  with  the  words,  "The  prophet  says  again  "  (IltiAiv  6 
Trpo^^r7?f.)  I  suppose,  therefore,  that  the  words  "  in  a  certain  gospel  "  were 
originally  a  marginal  gloss  made  by  a  transcriber,  who  attril)utod  to  Christ 
the  declaration  quoted  by  Clement,  and  who,  knowing  that  it  was  not  found 
in  the  four  Gospels,  thought  it  must  be  in  some  gospel  or  other.  (See  Jones, 
i.  422,  seqq.) 


360  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

it  is  a  subject  that  requires  elucidation  rather  than  argument. 
I  will  therefore  advert  to  another  work,  which  he  quotes 
under  the  name  of  "The  Traditions,"  and  which  has  been 
imagined  to  be  the  same  with  an  apocryphal  gospel  called 
"The  Gospel  according  to  Matthias."  He  speaks  of  the 
Traditions  in  the  following  passages  :  — 

"  To  attain  wisdom  we  must  begin  with  wondering  at  things, 
as  Plato  says  in  his  Theoetetus  ;  and  Matthias,  in  the  Tra- 
ditions, thus  concludes,  '  Wonder  at  present  things  ; '  making 
this  the  first  step  of  our  progress  in  knowledge."  * 

In  arguing  against  the  licentiousness  of  the  Carpocratians, 
he  adduces  another  passage,  thus  :  — 

"  It  is  said,  likewise,  that  Matthias  also  thus  taught :  '  We 
must  contend  against  the  flesh  and  humble  it,  granting  it  no 
intemperate  pleasure,  but  promote  the  growth  of  the  soul 
through  faith  and  knowledge.'  "  t 

He  again  quotes  a  passage  ascribed  to  Matthias,  for  the 
purpose,  as  before,  of  confirming  his  own  doctrine:  "It  is 
said  in  the  Traditions,  that  Matthias,  the  apostle,  often  re- 
peated, 'Ihat,  if  the  neighbor  of  one  of  the"  elect  sin,  he  him- 
self has  sinned ;  for,  if  he  had  conducted  himself  as  Reason 
(the  Logos)  dictates,  his  neighbor  would  have  so  reverenced 
his  course  of  life  as  not  to  sin.'  "  t  The  language  is  too  un- 
limited, but  the  morality  is  good. 

In  what  is  supposed  to  be  a  Latin  translation  of  a  portion 
of  a  lost  work  of  Clement,  called  "  Hypotyposes,"  or  Institu- 
tions, there  is  another  strange  passage  quoted  from  the  Tra- 
ditions, as  agreeing  with  the  conceptions  of  the  writer. 
Clement,  if  he  be  the  writer,  is  commenting  on  the  first 
words  of  the  First  Epistle  of  John,  which  —  to  render  as  he 
understood  them  —  are  these:  "What  was  from  the  begin- 
ning, what  we  have  seen  with  our  eyes,  what  we  have  heard, 


*  Stromat.,  ii.  §  9,  pp.  452,  453.  f  Ibid.,  m.  §  4,  p.  523. 

X  Ibid.,  vii.  §  13,  p.  882. 


GENUINENESS    OF   THE   GOSPELS.  301 

and  our  hands  have  touched,  concerning  the  Logos  of  life." 
He  maintains  (conformably  to  what  Photius  says*  was  a 
heresy  affirmed  by  Clement  in  the  work  just  mentioned),  that 
the  Logos  who  was  from  the  beginning  is  to  be  distinguished 
from  the  Logos  who  became  incarnate.  Tiie  latter  consisted 
of  those  powers  of  the  former  wliich  proceeded  from  him  as 
"a  ray  from  the  sun;"  and  "  tliis  ray,  coming  in  the  flesh, 
Lecame  an  object  of  touch  to  the  disciples."  —  "Tims,"  he 
says,  "it  is  related  in  the  Traditions,  that  'John,  touching 
his  external  body,  plunged  his  hand  in,  the  hardness  of  the 
flesh  offering  no  resistance  to  it,  but  giving  way  to  the  hand 
of  the  disciple.'  Hence  it  is  that  John  affirms,  '  Our  hands 
have  touched  concerning  the  Logos  of  life ; '  f  that  which 
came  in  the  flesh  being  made  an  object  of  to«cli."  t  Such 
traditions  strikingly  illustrate  what  would  have  been  the  state 
of  the  history  of  Jesus  in  the  latter  half  of  the  second  century, 
had  it  not  been  for  the  early  existence  and  authoritative  char- 
acter of  the  Gospels. 

There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  book  called  "  The 
Traditions  "  was  in  favor  with  any  Gnostics.  Clement  does 
not  represent  it  as  having  been  cited  by  any  heretical  writer. 
On  the  contrary,  he  himself  quotes  it  as  confirming  his  onm 
opinions.  He  does  not  entitle  it  "The  Traditions  of  Mat- 
thias," as  it  has  been  called  in  modern  times,  but  simply  "  The 
Traditions."  The  former  title  has  been  given  it,  because,  in 
the  three  passages  quoted  by  Clement  in  his  Stromata,  the 
name  of  Matthias  occurs  ;  and  this  title  having  been  given  it, 
the  book  has  been  fancied  by  some  to  be  the  same  with  an 
apocryphal  gospel  called  "The  Gospel  according  to  iNIat- 
thias." 

Of  this  book,  nothing  but  the  title  remains.      It  is  first 


*  Photii  Bibliotheca,  col.  285,  ed.  Schotti. 

t  "  Propter  quod  et  infert,  Et  manus  nostr(E  contrectaverunt  de  verbQ  vita. 

X  Apud  Clementis  Fragmenta,  0pp.  p.  1009. 


362  EVIDENCES   OF' THE 

mentioned  by  the  author  of  the  Homilies  on  Luke  ;  after  him^ 
by  his  imitators,  Ambrose  and  Jerome,  and  also  by  Eusebius 
Possibly  the  notion  that  there  was  such  a  book  may  havo 
arisen  from  the  fact  mentioned  by  Clement,*  that  the  Gnostica 
boasted  that  their  opinions  were  favored  by  Matthias,  or,  in 
other  words,  that  they  taught  the  Gospel  as  it  was  understood 
by  JNIatthias,  the  Gospel  according  to  Matthias.  Had  they 
possessed  a  book  with  that  title  known  to  Clement,  it  seems 
likely  that  he  would  have  spoken  of  it,  when  thus  taking 
notice  of  their  claim  to  the  countenance  of  Matthias.  Con- 
sidering the  tendency  of  the  fathers  to  charge  the  heretics 
with  using  books  of  no  authority,  the  bare  titles  of  supposed 
apocryphal  and  heretical  work?  given  by  the  author  of  the 
Homilies  onTiuke,  and  by  writers  after  the  end  of  the  third 
century,  deserve  little  consideration. 

Before  the  time  of  Origen,  i\o  writer  besides  Ireneeus 
and  Clement  mentions  any  apocryphal  gospel,  real  or  sup- 
posed, except  Serapion,  as  queved  by  Eusebius.  Serapion, 
who  was  bishop  of  Antioch  about  the  close  of  the  second 
century,  wrote,  concerning  a  gosp^..^  /^-alled  "  The  Gospel  ac- 
cording to  Peter,"  a  tract,  of  which  Eusebius  gives  the  follow- 
ing account.f 

"  Another  tract  was  composed  by  Serapion  concerning  the 
Gospel  according  to  Peter,  so  called,  tV.  object  of  which  was 
to  confute  the  errors  contained  in  it.  oq  account  of  some  in 
the  church  at  Rhossus  who  had  been  ?<^-d  by  this  book  to 
adopt  heterodox  opinions.  From  this  it  may  be  worth  while 
to  quote  a  few  words  in  which  he  expresses  his  opinion  con- 
cerning it.  '  We,  brethren,'  he  writes,  '  acknowJedge.  the  au- 
thority both  of  Peter  and  the  other  apostles,  a-s  've  do  that  of 
Christ;  but  we  reject,  with  good  reason,  the  wrf tings  which 
falsely  bear  their  names,  well  knowing  that  such  hrr^^  not 

*  See  before,  p.  328.  f  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  vi.  c.  12. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  363 

been  handed  down  to  us.  I,  indeed,  when  I  was  witli  you, 
supposed  that  you  were  all  going  on  in  a  right  faith  ;  niul,  not 
reading  through  the  gospel  under  the  name  of  Peter  wliich 
was  produced  by  them  [those  who  were  pleased  witli  it],  I 
said,  If  this  is  all  that  troubles  you,  let  the  book  be  read. 
But  having  since  learnt  from  what  has  been  told  me,  that 
their  minds  had  fallen  into  some  heresy,  I  hasten  to  be  with 
you  again,  brethren,  so  that  you  may  expect  me  shortly. 
Now  we,  brethren,  know  that  a  like  heresy  was  held  by 
Marcion,  who  also  contradicted  himself,  not  comprehending 
what  he  said,  as  you  may  learn  from  what  has  been  written 
to  you.*  For  we  have  been  able  to  procure  this  gospel  from 
others  who  use  it,  that  is,  from  his  followers,  who  are  called 
Docetce  (for  the  greater  part  of  the  opinions  in  question  be- 
long to  their  system),  and,  having  gone  through  it,  we  have 
found  it  for  the  most  part  conformable  to  the  true  doctrine  of 
the  Saviour ;  but  there  are  some  things  exceptionable,  which 
we  subjoin  for  your  information.' " 

We  may  conclude,  from  this  account,  that  the  Gospel  of 
Peter  was  not  a  history  of  Christ's  ministry.  Serapion  would 
not  have  regarded  with  such  indifference  as  he  first  manifested 
a  history  of  our  Lord,  ascribed  to  the  apostle  Peter,  which  he 
had  not  before  seen.  Were  it  genuine,  it  must  have  been  to 
him,  as  to  any  one  else,  an  object  of  great  interest.  But  the 
supposition  of  its  genuineness  is  too  extravagant  to  recpiire 
discussion.     Nor  can  we  suppose  it  to  have  been  an  original 

*  As  this  sentence  is  unimportant,  and  as  I  believe  the  present  text  to  bo 
corrupt,  I  have  ventured  to  render  it  as  perhaps  it  should  be  amended.  It 
now  stands  thus:  'H//f<f  61,  u<kA(pol,  naTaTiaSd/nevoi  onolag  t]v  a'n)ia£uq  b 
MapKcavbg,  Kal  eavrC)  ijvavuovTO,  /iff  vocjv  a  ekoAeL,  u  fiadi/aeade  l^  uv  vfuv 
typa(l>7].  'Edv}'T]6r]fif.v  yup  Trap'  uXXuv,  k.  t.  A.  I  would  read  the  first  words 
as  follows:  'H/zf^f  61,  a6t7.<poi,  KaTeTiajSofiev  on  djiolag  tjv  aipeasug  6  MapA/wv, 
Of  Kal  eavrC)  rjvavTtovTO,  k.  t.  X. 

There  is  also  some  uncertainty  about  the  precise  meaning  of  the  next 
sentence;  but,  fortunately,  this  uncertainty  does  not  extend  to  an.v  thing 
important  in  the  paragraph 


364  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

history  (tlmt  is  to  say,  not  a  compilation  from  any  one  or 
more  of  the  four  Gospels),  which,  though  not  the  work  of 
Peter,  was  yet  entitled  to  credit.  For  it  is  impossible  that 
the  existence  of  such  a  history  should  not  have  been  notori- 
ous ;  that  it  should  not  have  been  a  frequent  subject  of  re- 
mark ;  that  it  should  have  been  unknown  to  Serapion,  himself 
a  bishop  and  a  controversial  writer;  or,  even  if  previously 
unknown,  that  it  should  not  at  once  have  excited  his  atten- 
tion.—  Nor  can  it  have  been  a  history  founded  upon  one  or 
more  of  the  four  Gospels,  with  certain  additions  fiivoring  the 
opinions  of  the  Docetos.  "When  we  recollect  the  abundant 
notices  of  Marcion's  gospel,  which  was  only  a  mutilated  copy 
of  Luke's,  it  cannot  be  believed  that  there  was  another  his- 
torical book  extant  among  Marcion's  followers,  of  a  similar 
character  (except  that  it  contained  some  obnoxious  additions), 
of  which  the  notices  are  so  scanty,  and  which  is  never  men- 
tioned as  an  historical  book.  There  is  still  another  supposi- 
tion,—  that  it  was  a  history  undeserving  of  credit,  a  history 
containing  many  fabulous  accounts.  But  this  is  inconsistent 
with  the  manner  in  which  Serapion  mentions  it;  for  he 
speaks  of  it  with  but  slight  censure,  commending  the  general- 
ity of  its  contents ;  as  no  catholic  writer  of  his  time  would 
have  spoken  of  such  a  professed  history  of  Christ's  ministry 
as  we  have  last  imagined. 

The  Gospel  according  to  Peter,  then,  was  not  an  historical 
book ;  and  this  appears,  not  merely  from  what  has  been  said, 
but  from  the  fact,  that  neither  Serapion  nor  Eusebius  gives 
any  intimation  that  it  bore  that  character.  Serapion's  trea- 
tise was  in  the  hands  of  Eusebius,  as  it  probably  had  been  in 
those  of  many  before  him.  It  treated  of  the  errors  in  the 
book ;  it  was  written  to  refute  them ;  and,  had  these  errors 
consisted  in  ialse  narratives  concerning  Christ,  there  is  no 
reasonable  doubt  that  plenary  evidence  of  the  fact  would  have 
existed,  both  in  the  writings  of  Serapion  and  Eusebius,  and 
in  those  of  other  fathers.     It  appears  that  it  was  used  by  the 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE   GOSPELS.  3G5 

Gnostics,  and,  had  it  been  a  professed  history  of  Clirist's  min- 
istry used  by  them,  we  should  certainly  have  had  much  more 
full  information  concerning  it.  The  supposition  that  it  was 
not  an  historical  book,  and  this  alone,  it  may  be  further  ob- 
served, agrees  with  the  manner  in  which  Serapion  describes 
it,  as  "  for  the  most  part  conformable  to  the  true  doctrine  " 
(not  the  true  history)  "  of  the  Saviour,  but  containing  some 
things  exceptionable." 

The  book,  it  may  be  added,  was  not  of  any  importance  or 
notoriety.  Serapion,  Bishop  of  Antioch,  in  his  time  tlie  prin- 
cipal see  in  the  East,  was,  as  we  have  seen,  unacquainted  with 
it,  till  his  attention  was  called  to  it  by  some  Christians  of  liis 
diocese,  as  favoring  heretical  doctrines.  We  may  conclude, 
therefore,  that  it  was  unknown  to  a  great  majority  of  Chris- 
tians, his  contemporaries.  Besides  the  notice  of  it  by  him, 
we  find  the  following  passage  in  Origen :  "  Some  say  that 
the  brothers  of  Jesus  were  the  sons  of  Joseph  by  a  wife  to 
whom  he  was  married  before  Mary,  relying  upon  the  tradi- 
tion in  the  Gospel  according  to  Peter  or  the  book  of  James.''  * 
It  is  also  referred  to  by  Eusebius  and  Jerome,  who  mention 
it  as  an  apocryphal  work  falsely  ascribed  to  Peter.  Eusebius 
especially  enumerates  it  among  those  books  which  were 
brought  forward  by  the  heretics  under  the  names  of  apostles ; 
such  as  no  writer  of  the  Church  had  thought  worth  commem- 
orating, they  being  altogether  devoid  of  good  sense  and  piety. 
No  fragment  of  it  remains,  and  these  are  all  the  notices  of  it 
found  in  the  first  four  centuries. 

We  now  come  to  Origen.  It  is  doubtful  whether  the 
Homilies  on  Luke,  which  have  been  so  often  mentioned  in 
this  chapter,  are  to  be  referred  to  him  as  their  author.f  If 
they  are  not,  there   is   no  passage  in  all  Origen's  works  in 


*  Comment,  in  Matth.,  torn,  x.,  0pp.  iii.  462,  463. 

t  See  the  Preface  to  the  third  volume  of  De  la  Rue's  edition  of  Origin. 


366  EVIDENCES   OP  THE 

wliich  he  speaks  of  an  apocryphal  gospel  as  used  by  any 

Gentile  Christians,  catholic  or  heretical,  besides  that  relating 
to  the  Gospel  of  Peter  which  has  just  been  quoted.  Of  the 
book  of  James,  mentioned  in  connection  with  it,  I  shall  speak 
hereafter. 

I  have  remarked  on  three  titles  of  apocryphal  gospels  men- 
tioned by  the  author  of  the  Homilies  on  Luke.  There  is  one 
other,  "  The  Gospel  according  to  Thomas,"  to  which  likewise 
I  shall  advert  hereafter. 

Besides  those  writers  whom  I  have  quoted,  there  is  none 
who  speaks  of  apocryphal  gospels  before  Eusebius,  in  the  first 
half  of  the  fourth  century.  He  enumerates  among  heretical 
books,  "  altogether  absurd  and  irreligious,"  three  of  those 
already  mentioned,  namely,  the  gospels  of  Peter,  Thomas, 
and  Matthias,*  but  gives  no  further  information  concerning 
them,  and  adds  no  new  title  to  the  list. 

I  have  brought  down  the  inquiry  respecting  apocryphal 
gospels  to  a  much  later  period  than  was  necessary.  No  one 
will  suppose  that  a  book  of  which  there  is  no  mention  before 
the  fourth  century  could  have  served  the  Gnostics  as  a  basis 
for  their  doctrines.  If  any  book  appeared  after  the  com- 
mencement of  the  fourth  century,  pretending  to  be  an  origi- 
nal history  of  Christ's  ministry,  —  of  which  we  have  no 
proof,  and  which,  in  the  nature  of  things,  is  altogether  im- 
probable, —  no  one  will  imagine  that  it  was  entitled  to 
regard.  Of  any  book  of  an  early  age,  purporting  to  give  an 
account  of  his  ministry  different  from  that  contained  in  the 
four  Gospels,  it  is  a  moral  impossibility  that  we  should  not 
have  received  full  and  unequivocal  information  from  writers 
before  the  time  of  Eusebius. 

*  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  iii.  c.  25. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  3GT 

There  is  no  reason,  as  I  conceive,  to  suppose  that  tlie  apoc- 
ryphal gospels  which  have  been  mentioned,  or  the  otlier 
apocryphal  books  extant  during  the  first  three  centuries, 
were  commonly  written  with  the  fraudulent  design  of  fur- 
nishing the  pretended  authority  of  Jesus  or  his  apostles  in 
support  of  false  doctrines  or  spurious  history  ;  or  that,  wlieu 
they  bore  the  name  of  an  apostle,  it  was  intended  that  tlioy 
should  be  ascribed  to  him  as  his  proper  work.  The 
author  of  such  a  book  may  have  put  his  own  opinions  into 
the  mouth  of  an  apostle  by  a  common  rhetorical  artifice,  as 
Plato  in  his  dialogues  introduces  Socrates  and  Tima^us  as 
teaching  his  doctrines  ;  or  as  if  one,  at  the  present  day,  were 
to  publish  a  work,  calling  it  "  The  Gospel  as  tauglit  by  {ac- 
cording  to)  St.  Paul,"  or  "  The  Gospel  as  taught  by  St. 
James."  Of  this  mode  of  writing  we  have  a  remarkable  ex- 
ample in  the  Clementine  Homilies,  the  author  of  which  could 
have  intended  no  deception.  But  the  whole  account  given  in 
them  of  the  actions  of  Peter  is  a  fiction,  and  the  discourses 
ascribed  to  him  contain  only  the  writer's  own  views  of  the 
character  of  Christianity.  Af^cording,  however,  to  the  an- 
cient use  of  language,  this  book  might  have  been,  and  possibly 
was,  called  "  The  Gospel  according  to  Peter."  Such  books 
might  be,  or  it  might  be  foncied  that  they  were,  founded  on 
some  traditionary  information  respecting  the  teaching  of  an 
apostle.  Thus  a  book  called  "The  Preaching  of  Peter,"  or 
"  The  Preaching  of  Peter  and  Paul,"  was  regarded  both  by 
Clement  of  Alexandria  and  by  Lactantius  as  a  work  of  somo 
authority.  Lactantius  supposed  it  to  be  a  record  of  their 
preaching  while  together  at  Rome.*  Clement  (piotes  it  in 
the  same  manner  as  he  quotes  '-The  Traditions"  before  men- 
tioned, and  the  works  of  the  Pagan  philosophers,  not  in  evi- 
dence of  facts,  but  as  corresponding  with  and  confirming  hia 
own  opinions. 


*  Institiit.,  lib.  iv.  c  21. 


368  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

Irenaeus  speaks,  at  we  have  seen,  of  a  gospel  by  Judas 
Iscariot.  There  was  reported  to  be  another  under  the  name 
of  Matthias,  and  another  under  the  name  of  Thomas;  but 
these  titles  are  not  mentioned  before  the  third  century.  Of 
the  books  or  of  the  titles  which  have  been  enumerated,  bear- 
ing the  names  of  apostles,  there  is  besides  only  the  Gospel  of 
Peter,  which  became  known  to  Serapion  about  the  close  of  the 
second  century.  But  it  is  altogether  incredible  that  any  Gen- 
tile Christian  in  the  second  century  should  have  engaged  in 
so  hopeless  and  foolish  an  attempt,  as  to  endeavor  to  pass  off 
a  composition  of  his  own  as  a  gospel  written  by  an  apostle,- — ■ 
a  gospel  which  had  never  before  been  heard  of.  Nor  is  it 
much  more  likely  that  any  Gentile  Christian,  without  ascrib- 
ing his  work  to  an  apostle,  would,  after  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  have  pretended  to  give  an  original  history  of 
Christ's  ministry,  at  variance  with  the  four  Gospels.  As  we 
have  already  seen,  there  is  no  evidence  that  any  such  work 
existed. 

The  subject  of  the  apocryphal  gospels  has,  as  it  was  natural 
it  should,  attracted  much  attention.  It  is  a  subject  which  de- 
served to  be  thoroughly  examined.  But  the  unavoidable 
consequence  of  the  manner  in  which  it  has  been  treated  has 
been  to  produce  a  very  false  impression  of  their  importance. 
They  were  obscure  writings,  very  little  regarded  or  known 
by  any  Christians,  catholic  or  heretical.  We  find  in  Justin 
Martyr  and  Tertullian  nothing  concerning  them ;  in  Irenaeus, 
two  titles,  one  purporting  to  be  that  of  a  book,  which  most 
probably  was  not  extant,  and  the  other  likewise  perhaps 
originating  in  mistake,  but  supposed  to  belong  to  a  Valen- 
tinian  gospel,  which  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  Valentinians 
ever  appealed  to.  Clement  gives  some  extracts  from  a  gospel 
which  he  found  quoted  by  the  Encratites  or  ascetics.  Serapion 
mentions  the  Gospel  of  Peter,  as  in  the  hands  of  persons  be- 
longing to  a  parish  in  his  diocese,  called  Rhossns,  and  as  used 
by  some  of  the  Docetae.    Origen  once  refers  to  the  same  book. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  3G9 

And  the  author  of  the  Homilies  on  Luke  adds  three  other 
titles  of  books  of  which  he  gives  no  account.*  These  are  all 
the  notices  of  apocryphal  gospels  to  be  found  in  all  the  writers 
of  Christian  antiquity  before  the  end  of  the  tliird  century. 
Had  they  been  works  of  any  notoriety,  works  possessing  any 
intrinsic  or  accidental  importance,  we  should  have  had  page 
after  page  of  controversy,  discussion,  and  explanation  con- 
cerning them. 

About  the  beginning  of  the  last  century,  a  manuscrii)t  was 
made  known  of  a  gospel  ascribed  to  Barnabas,  in  the  Italian 
language,  but  supposed  to  be  translated  from  the  Arabic.  It 
is  the  work  of  a  Mahometan,  or  a  work  interpolated  by  a 
Mahometan.  Much  more  has  been  written  by  different 
authors  about  this  bookf  than  all  that  is  to  be  found  in  the 
Christian  writers  of  the  first  three  centuries  concerning  apoc- 
ryphal gospels.  Yet  it  is  a  book  of  which,  probably,  few  of 
my  readers  have  ever  heard  ;  and  of  which  he  who  has  known 
any  thing  may  have  forgotten  what  he  knew.     It  is  easy  to 


*  I  have  not  adverted  in  the  text  to  one  title  mentioned  by  the  author 
of  the  Homilies;  namely,  "  The  Gospel  according  to  the  Twelve  Apostles;  " 
because,  as  we  learn  from  Jerome  (Advers.  Pelagianos,  lib.  ui.  0pp.  torn.  iv. 
pars  ii.  col.  533),  this  was  only  a  name  which  was  sometimes  given  to  the 
Gospel  of  the  Hebrews.  It  may  naturally  have  had  its  origin  m  the  cir- 
cumstance that  the  Hebrew  Christians  afhrmed  that  the  Gospel  of  Matthew, 
which  alone  thev  used,  contained  the  Gospel  as  taught  by  the  apostles,  or,  m 
other  words,  w^s  the  Gospel  according  to  the  apostles.  But  there  .s  son.e- 
thing  more  to  be  observed.  The  title  given  is  not  simp  y,  The  Gospel 
according  to  the  Apostles,"  but  "The  Gospel  according  to  the  Twelve  Apos- 
tles "  The  Hebrew  Christians,  generally,  did  not  recognize  the  apostlesh.p 
of^St.  Paul,  but  regarded  him  as  a  false  teacher.  They  revolted  at  ins 
doctrine  of  the  abolition  of  their  Law,  and  of  their  peculiar  -t.onal  d.^.nc- 
tions.  Hence  thev.may  have  called  their  gospel  the  Gospel  accordmg  to  the 
W.  Apostles,  ;f  whose  number  he  was  not,  in  order  to  nnp^-  .ant  w 
from  the  twelve  apostles,  and  not  from  hin.,  the  preacher  to  the  Gentde.,  that 
the  true  doctrines  of  the  Gospel  were  to  be  learned.  Translation 

t  See  Fabricius,  iii.  373,  seqq.;  Jones,  i.  162  seqq.;  Sale  s  Tra..^at  n 
of  the  Koran  (ed.  1825),  in  his  Prelimi,...y  Discourse,  p.  102,  and  .n  Is 
Notes,  VOL  i.  pp.  61,  170;  and  the  works  referred  to  by  the  authors  men- 
tioued.  24 


870  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

apply  this  fact  to  assist  ourselves  in  judging  of  the  importance 
to  be  attached  to  the  notices  of  apocryphal  gospels  found  in 
the  fathers. 

It  may  seem  as  if,  in  reference  to  our  present  inquiry,  any 
further  discussion  of  the  subject  must  be  useless ;  and  it  would 
be  so,  but  for  the  misapprehensions  which  have  existed  con- 
cerning it.  There  are  some  fabulous  books  still  extant,  which, 
thus  standing  as  it  were  in  the  foreground,  are  more  likely,  at 
first  view,  to  be  taken  for  true  representatives  of  ancient  apoc- 
ryphal gospels,  than  those  titles  and  fragments,  appearing  in 
the  remote  distance,  with  which  alone  we  are  in  fact  con- 
cerned. These  books  have,  in  modern  times,  been  called 
"  Gospels  of  the  Nativity  of  the  Virgin  Mary,"  and  "  Gospels 
of  the  Infancy,"  that  is,  of  the  infancy  of  Jesus.  They  have, 
likewise,  directly  or  indirectly,  been  brought  into  competition 
with  the  four  Gospels.  But  whatever  tends  to  weaken  the 
exclusive  authority  of  the  catholic  Gospels,  or  to  confound 
them  in  the  same  class  with  fabulous  writings,  opens  the  way 
for  a  vague  conjecture  that  there  may  have  been  in  early  times 
other  histories  of  the  ministry  of  Christ  at  variance  with  those 
Gospels,  and  entitled  to  as  much  or  more  credit.  We  will, 
therefore,  go  on  to  take  notice  of  the  works  referred  to. 

In  the  quotation  that  I  have  given  from  Origen,*  besides 
the  mention  of  the  Gospel  of  Peter,  there  is  mention,  likewise, 
of  a  book  of  James.  About  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury, the  celebrated  visionary  Postel  brought  to  the  notice  of 
European  scholars  a  work  written  in  Greek,  a  manuscript 
of  which  he  found  in  the  East.  It  is  a  book  of  about  a  quarter 
of  the  size  of  the  Gospel  of  Mark.  He  entitled  it  "The 
Protevangelion  (that  is,  the  First  Gospel)  of  St.  James  the 
Less  ; "  t  —  the  pretended  events  which  it  relates  being  sup- 

*  See  before,  p.  365. 

*  The  work  has  been  republished  by  Fabricius,  Joues,  and  Thilo. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  371 

posed  by  him  to  have  occurred  prior  to  those  recorded  by  St. 
Mark,  to  whose  Gosi)el  he  fancied  it  inteiuh'd  for  an  intro- 
duction. But  a  number  of  manuscripts  of  it  ai-e  now  known, 
and  the  title  Protevangelion  is  not  supjjortcd  by  iheir  au- 
thority.* The  autlior,  in  the  conckisiou  of  the  work,  gives 
his  name  as  James.  It  is  a  collection  of  legenchiry  fables 
principally  concerning  the  nativity  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  her 
history  and  that  of  Joseph,  and  the  nativity  of  Jesus.  The 
nativity  of  the  Virgin  is  represented  to  have  been  miraculous, 
like  that  of  Samuel,  and  to  have  been  announced  by  an  angel. 
Some  things  are  interwoven  from  the  first  two  chapters 
ascribed  to  Matthew,  and  from  the  account  of  our  Saviour's 
birth  given  by  Luke.  There  are  two  coincidences  of  its 
narrative  with  what  is  found  in  ancient  authors,  which 
deserve  notice.  The  first  relates  to  the  passage  of  Origen 
just  referred  to. 

Origen  says,  that,  conformably  to  the  book  of  Jamt  s,  the 
individuals  called  in  the  Gospels  the  brothers  f  of  Jesus  were 
children  of  Joseph  by  a  former  wife.  In  the  Protevangelion, 
Mary  is  represented  as  having  been  dedicated  by  her  parents 
as  a  virgin  to  the  service  of  God  in  the  Temi)le,  but  at  the 
age  of  twelve  years  as  having  been  removed  thence  by  the 
priests,  and  committed  in  trust  to  Joseph,  with  the  purpose 
of  her  becoming  his  wife.  Before  receiving  her,  he  is  repre- 
sented as  saying,  "I  am  an  old  man  and  have  children." :f 


*  Its  title  is  given  with  much  diversity  in  different  manuscripts;  but  in 
all  its  variations  expresses  that  the  subject  of  the  work  is  a  History  of  tlic 
Nativity  of  ^Marv.  In  what  is  supposed  to  be  the  oldest  manuscript  it 
runs  thus:  "A  Narration  and  History  how  tlie  superlioly  Mother  of  God 
(jj  i'Trepayia  OeoruKog)  was  born."  (Tiiiio,  p.  liii.)  But  the  book  is  not 
confined  to  a  mere  account  of  the  nativity  of  Mary:  it  extends  (as  appears 
above)  to  the  history  of  her  life. 

t  The  word  in  the  original,  udpl<pOL,  should  be  rendered  kinsmen,  accord- 
ing to  a  common  use  of  it.  It  does  not  in  the  passage  iu  question  denote 
brothers,  in  the  limited  sense  of  the  English  word. 

J  Protevangelion,  c.  9. 


872  EVIDENCES    OF   THE 

The  story,  that  Joseph,  when  he  married  Mary,  was  an  old 
man  with  children  by  a  former  wife,  is  found  in  many  writers 
after  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century. 

One  of  the  fables  in  this  book  is,  that  Mary,  after  child- 
birth, remained  in  all  respects  as  a  virgin.*  The  story  is 
referred  to  and  countenanced  by  Clement  of  Alexandria,  f 
Tertullian,  on  the  contrary,  in  contending  against  those 
Gnostics  who  asserted  that  the  body  of  Christ  Avas  not  a  body 
of  flesh  and  blood,  and  that  it  was  in  no  part  derived  from 
his  mother,  insists  on  his  proper  birth,  and  incidentally  repre- 
sents it  as  in  all  respects  like  that  of  others.  |  It  is  not, 
however,  to  be  inferred  that  the  Gnostics  maintained  the 
opinion  just  mentioned ;  for,  on  the  one  hand,  the  Marcion- 
ites  denied  altogether  the  nativity  of  Christ;  and,  on  the 
other,  that  opinion  was  not  necessarily  connected  with  the 
doctrine  of  the  theosophic  Gnostics,  who  ascribed  to  Christ 
a  body,  though  not  a  human  bod}^  But,  with  a  strange 
approximation  to  the  Gnostic  denial  of  the  proper  body  of 
Christ,  it  has  become  the  established  faith  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church.  §  It  was  made  an  article  of  orthodox  belief 
by  the  Lateran  Council,  held  under  Pope  Martin  the  First, 
in  the  year  649. 

Unless   Origen,  under  the  name  of  the  book  of  James, 


*  Protevangelion,  cc.  19,  20.  f  Stromat.,  vii.  §  16,  pp.  889,  890. 

J  In  his  tract  De  Came  Christi. 

§  "  II  convient  toutefois  qu'il  est  de  la  foi  catholique,  que  Marie  est 
demeur^e  Vierge  apr^s  renfantement  comme  devant."  (Fleury,  Hist. 
Eccl^s.  An.  847.)  In  the  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent  (pars  i.  art.  3, 
n.  13)  it  is  said,  "  Pra;terea,  quo  nihil  admirabilius  dici  omnino,  aut  cogitari 
potest,  nascitur  [Christus]  ex  matre  sine  ulla  maternal  virginitatis  diminu- 
tione,  et  quomodo  postea  ex  sepulcro  clauso  et  obsignato  egressus  est,  atque 
ad  discipulos  clausis  januis  introivit:  vel,  ne  a  rebus  etiani,  quae  a  naturd 
quotidie  fieri  vidcmus,  discedatur,  quo  modo  solis  radii  concretam  vitri  sub- 
stantiam  penetrant,  neque  frangunt  tamen,  aut  aliqua  ex  parte  lajdunt; 
siniili,  inquam,  et  altiori  modo  Jesus  Christus  ex  materno  alvo,  sine  ullo 
inaternaj  virginitatis  detrimento,  editus  est,  ipsius  enim  inccrruptam  virgin/ 
tatem  verissimis  laudibus  celcbrainus." 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.         373 

refers  to  some  work  like  the  Protevangelion,  that  is,  to  some 
pretended  history  of  the  mother  of  our  Lord,  wliicli  may 
have  served  for  the  foundation  of  that  now  extant,  thci-e  is 
no  mention  of  any  such  work  before  the  latter  half  of  the 
fourth  century.  In  the  fourth  and  fiftli  centuries,  it  seems 
probable  that  there  was  more  than  one  narrative  of  this  kind 
in  existence ;  but  that  these  narratives  were  generally  re- 
garded as  fabulous  and  worthless.*  During  the  ages  of 
darkness  that  followed,  the  legends  concerning  the  Virgin 
found  favor,  in  common  with  other  fables  which  overspread 
ecclesiastical  and  profane  history.  Th«'y  have  entered  into 
the  established  mythology  of  the  Roman  Catliolic  Cluirch, 
and  have  furnished  conceptions  for  its  great  masters  in  the 
art  of  painting.  But  the  particular  book  we  are  considering, 
the  Protevangelion,  never  obtained  such  credit  in  tlie  AVcst 
as  in  the  East.  In  the  West,  its  existence  had  become  un- 
known before  it  was  brought  to  light  by  Postel.  In  the 
East,  it  seems  probable  that  it  was  at  one  period  read  in  some 
churches  on  certain  holydays,  in  the  same  manner  as  the  le- 
gends of  Saints  were  read  on  their  festivals-t  The  oldest  man- 
uscript of  it  now  known  is  referred  to  the  tenth  century.  J 

The  fables  respecting  the  nativity  and  history  of  Mary,  like 
those  which  went  to  the  compilation  of  other  apocryphal 
writings,  being  destitute  of  all  authority,  were  recast  in  ditVer- 
ent  forms  by  different  hands.  Tliey  are  extant,  with  nuicii 
diversity  from  the  Protevangelion,  in  a  work  found  in  two 
Latin  manuscripts,  one  of  the  fourteenth  and  the  other  of  the 
fifteenth  century,  §  in  which  they  are  connected  at  the  end 
with  a  few  stories  of  miracles  performed  by  our  Lord  in  his 
infancy.  ||     In  Latin,  also,  there  is  another  work,  shorter  and 


*  Thilo,  p.  Ix.  seqq.;  p.  xci.  seqq:  cont:  Epiphaniiis,  Ilivres.,  xxiv.  §  12, 

p.  94. 

t  Thilo,  pp.  lix.,  Ix.  t  Il)id-,  P-  liii-  §  ^^'^^  '  V-  ^'viii 

II  The  work  is  published  by  Thilo  under  the  title  of  "  Historia  de  Nativi- 

tale  Marias  et  de  Infantia  Salvatoris." 


3T4  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

less  extravagant  than  those  which  have  been  mentioned,  re- 
lating to  the  birth  and  history  of  Mary,  of  which  the  modern 
title  is  "  The  Gospel  of  the  Nativity  of  Mary."  *  Of  this 
the  pretended  Hebrew  original  was  ascribed  to  the  Apostle 
Matthew,  and  the  translation  to  Jerome.  The  fiction  by 
which  Jerome  is  represented  as  its  translator  shows  that  its 
composition  must  have  been  later  than  the  fourth  century. 

We  proceed  to  the  Books  of  the  Infancy.  As  I  have  men- 
tioned, the  author  of  the  Homilies  on  Luke  gives  the  title  of 
a  Gospel  according  to  Thomas ;  and  the  same  title  is  found  in 
subsequent  writers.f  We  may  conjecture  it  to  have  been 
one  of  those  professed  expositions  of  Christianity  wliich  were 
called  "gospels."  Nor  is  there  any  thing  in  the  ancient 
writers  who  mention  it  to  countenance  a  different  supposition. 
But  there  is  now  extant  in  Greek  a  collection  of  fables  con- 
cerning the  infancy  and  childhood  of  Jesus,  which  is  not,  in 
the  manuscripts  of  it,  entitled  "  a  gospel,"  but  the  writer  of 
which  announces  himself  as  Thomas  an  Israelite,  t  This 
book  has  been  thought  to  be  essentially  the  same  vvith  the 
gospel  mentioned  by  the  author  of  the  Homilies,  and  to  have 
been  in  existence  in  the  second  century.  But  of  such  books, 
more  or  less  resembling  one  another,  there  are  a  number  ex- 
tant, which  have  passed  in  modern  times  under  the  name^of 
"  Gospels  of  the  Infancy." 

One  of  this  number  (much  larger  than  the  book  ascribed  to 
Thomas  in  its  present  state)  is  written  in  Arabic.  It  was 
published  with  a  Latin  translation  in  the  year  1697,  by 
Henry  Sike,  Professor  of  the  Oriental  Languages  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  Cambridge.  §     With  this  the  name  of  Thomas  is  not 

*  It  may  be  found  in  FaDricius.  Jones,  and  Thilo. 

t  See  Fabricius,  i.  131,  seqq. ;  Thilo,  Ixxix.  seqq. 

X  A  fraj^ment  —  the  first  part  —  of  this  book  nia}'  be  found  in  Fabricius 
and  Jones.     The  whole,  as  now  extant,  is  given  by  Thilo. 

§  The  Latin  version  has  been  republished  by  Fabricius  and  JoLes ;  and 
the  original  with  the  version,  by  Thilo. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        375 

connected.  It  consists  of  stories  of  pretended  miracles,  which 
accompanied  the  birth  and  infancy  of  our  Saviour,  and  which 
he  himself  performed  when  a  child.  There  is  some  fancy  in 
these  fictions.  They  have  a  tinge  of  Eastern  invention,  hut 
are  essentially  of  the  same  character  as  the  common  legends 
of  the  Middle  Ages.  The  relator  sometimes  refers  to  fiicts  in 
the  Gospels,  and  connects  his  story  with  them.  Thus  he 
gives  a  narrative  concerning  two  robbers,  whom  he  represents 
as  the  same  afterwards  crucified  with  Jesus.*  These  and  simi- 
lar fables  became  popular  in  the  East,  particularly  among  the 
followers  of  Mahomet.  Two  of  them  appear  in  the  Koran,t 
and  others  have  been  current  among  Mahometan  writers,  t 

The  compilation  in  Greek  that  bears  the  name  of  Thomas 
has  a  general  correspondence  with  the  last  half  of  the  preced- 
ing. Omitting  those  pretended  miracles  which  accomj)anicd 
the  nativity  and  infixncy  of  Jesus,  it  begins  with  those  per- 
formed in  his  childhood.  Of  these,  about  half  the  stories 
in  one  work  correspond  to  those  in  the  other,  though  the 
order  in  which  they  are  arranged  is  not  the  same,  and  tiiey 
are  often  differently  told.  Both  works  imply  a  very  low 
state  of  intellect  and  morals  in  those  by  whom  and  for  whom 
they  were  vrritten.  In  some  of  the  fictions,  Jesus,  as  a  child, 
is  represented  as  violent  and  cruel,  so  that  his  father,  Joseph, 
is  introduced  as  saying,  "  From  this  time  we  will  not  sutler 
him  to  go  out  of  the  house  ;  for  whoever  makes  him  angry  is 
killed."  §  The  notions  of  the  writer  of  eitlier  book  seem  in 
this  respect  to  have  been  derived  from  the  use  of  power  by  an 
Oriental  despot. 

*  Cap.  23. 

t  One  is  of  Chiist's  speaking  while  in  his  cmdle  (Arabic  Gospel  of  the 
Infancy,  c.  1),  which  he  did  according  to  the  Koran  (chap.  3,  vol.  i.  p.  58, 
and  chap.  19,  vol  ii.  p.  145).  The  other  is  of  his  making  birds  of  clay,  to 
Which  he  gave  life  (Arabic  Gospel,  cc  36,  46),  which  is  referred  to  iu  tie 
Koran  (chap.  3,  vol.  i.  p.  59,  and  chap.  5,  vol.  i.  p.  139). 

X  See  Sike's  notes  (republished  by  Thilo). 

§  Arabic  Gospel,  c.  49.     Gospel  of  Thomas,  c   14. 


876  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

A  similar  collection  of  fables  appears  to  be,  or  to  have 
been,  extant  in  different  languages  of  the  East.*  Several 
manuscript  collections  of  them  are  extant  in  Latin,  more  or 
less  diverse  from  one  another,  and  from  the  Arabic  and  the 
Greek  compilation.  One  only  of  these  is  known  to  bear  the 
name  of  Thomas.  The  author's  name  is  otherwise  given  as 
Matthew  the  Evangelist,  or  James  the  son  of  Joseph  (to 
whom  the  Protevangelion  is.  ascribed)  ;  and  in  one  copy  the 
pretended  authors  are  Onesimus  and  John  the  Evangelist.f 

In  regard  to  these  fables  respecting  the  infancy  and  child- 
hood of  Jesus,  we  find  an  early  notice  of  one  of  them  in 
Irenagus.  He  is  giving  an  account  of  a  sect,  the  Marco- 
sians,  who  believed,  like  the  Jewish  Cabalists,  that  there 
were  profound  mysteries  hidden  in  the  letters  of  the  alpha- 
bet. After  speaking  of  their  perversion  of  the  Scriptures, 
Irenaeus  says,  — 

**  Moreover,  they  bring  forward  an  unspeakable  number  of 
apocryphal  and  spurious  writings,  which  they  have  fabricated,  to 
confound  the  simple,  and  such  as  are  ignorant  of  those  writings 
which  contain  the  truth.  To  this  end,  they  also  adopt  that  fiction 
concerning  our  Lord,  that,  when  he  was  a  child,  and  learning  the 
alphabet,  his  master,  as  usual,  told  him  to  say  Alpha  (A)  ;  and 
that,  upon  his  repeating  Alpha,  when  his  master  next  told  him  to 
say  Beta  (B),  the  Lord  replied,  '  Do  you  first  tell  me  what  Alpha 
is,  and  then  I  will  tell  you  what  Beta  Is.'  And  this  they  explain 
as  showing  that  he  alone  knew  the  mystery,  which  he  revealed.  In 
the  letter  Alpha."  J 

We  may  first  incidentally  remark  on  this  passage,  that  the 
many  apocryphal  books  fabricated  by  the  Marcosians  could 
have  had  but  a  short-lived  existence,  and  were  but  of  little 
note ;  since  no  one  of  them  is  specified  by  name  in  any 
writer ;  nor  does  Irenaeus,  in  his  loner  article  on  the  sect,  nor 


*  Thilo,  p.  xxxii.  seqq.  f  Ibid.,  p.  cv.  seqq. 

X  Coat.  Hseres.,  lib.  i.  c.  20,  p.  91. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSrELS.        3T7 

any  other  writer,  refer  elsewliere  to  any  use  wliicli  tlic  :\r:ir- 
cosians  made  of  them.  It  may  next  be  observed,  that  the 
passage  is  remarkable,  as  affording  one  of  the  only  two  exam- 
ples which  are  reported  by  the  writers  during  the  three 
centuries  succeeding  the  death  of  our  Lord,  of  an  argument 
for  a  Gnostic  doctrine,  founded  on  a  narrative  con(;erning 
him  not  related  in  the  Gospels.*  But  that  this  narrative  was 
already  incorporated  into  a  collection  of  like  stories  does  not 
appear  from  Irenasus.  His  words,  on  the  contrary,  rather 
imply  that  it  was  not.  "  In  addition,"  he  says,  to  their  apoc- 
ryphal books,  —  for  this  is  the  force  of  his  language,  —  "they 
adopt  for  the  same  purpose  that  fiction,"  a  well-known  fiction, 
as  is  implied,  "  concerning  the  Lord." 

This  fiction  has  become  the  foundation  of  two  different 
stories  in  the  Arabic  compilation,!  and  of  three  in  the  Greek,  t 
in  the  former  our  Saviour  being  represented  as  having  had 
two  successive  schoolmasters,  and  in  the  latter,  three ;  and,  as 
might  be  expected  from  its  antiquity,  none  of  the  fables  of 
the  same  class  appears  to  have  been  miDre  widely  circulated.  § 


*  The  other  example  which  I  refer  to  is  the  use,  hefore  mentioned  (see 
p.  354,  seqq.),  Avhich  was  made  hy  the  Encratites  of  a  passage  in  the  Gospel 
of  the  Egyptians. 

\  Cc.  48,  49.  t  Cc.  6,  7,  8,  14,  1.5. 

§  "As  to  the  life  of  Jesus  Christ,"  says  Chardin,  "the  Persian  legends 
contain  not  only  what  is  in  the  Gospels,  but  likewise  all  tiie  tales  found  in 
the  legends  of  the  Eastern  Christians,  and  particularly  in  an  Armenian 
legend,  entitled  V Evaiujile  Enfant  *  Avliich  is  nothing  but  a  tissue  of  fabulous 
miracles;  such,  for  example,  as  that  Jesus,  seeing  Joseph  much  troubled  at 
having  cut  a  board  of  cedar  too  short,  said  to  him, '  Why  are  you  so  troubled  ? 
Give  me  one  end  of  the  board  and  pull  the  other,  and  it  will  grow  longer.' 
Another  story  is,  that,  being  sent  to  school  to  learn  the  alphabet,  his  master 
directed  him  to  pronounce  A.  He  paused,  and  said  to  his  master,  '  Tell  me, 
first,  why  the  first  letter  of  the  alphabet  is  formed  as  it  is.'  Upon  this,  his 
master  treating  him  as  a  talkative  little  child,  he  answered,  '  I  Avill  not  say 
A,  till  you  tell  me  why  the  tirst  letter  is  made  as  it  is.'  But  liis  master 
growing  angry,  he  said  to  him,  'I  will  instruct  you,  then.     The  first  htter 


*  The  title  is  so  rendered  by  Chardin. 


378  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

During  a  long  interval  after  Irenseus,  we  hear  notlilng 
more  of  fables  respecting  the  infancy  and  childhood  of  Christ. 
There  is  nothing  necessarily  miraculous  in  the  supposed  fact 
related  in  the  story  which  he  quotes :  on  the  contrary,  none 
but  the  Marcosiaus,  or  those  who  entertained  like  notions 
with  them  of  the  mysterious  significance  of  the  letters  of  the 
alphabet,  could  have  inferred  from  it  any  supernatural  knowl- 
edge in  the  infant  Jesus.  Epiphanius  is  the  first  writer  who 
distinctly  refers  to  stories  of  fabulous  miracles  performed  by 
Jesus  in  his  childhood;  and  these  stories  he  does  not  alto- 
gether reject.  The  miracle  at  the  marriage  feast  at  Cana,  he 
says,  was  the  first  performed  by  Jesus,  "except,  perhaps, 
those  which  he  is  reported  to  have  performed  in  his  youth,  in 
play  as  it  were,  according  to  what  some  say."  *  After  him, 
Chrysostom  expresses  his  opinion,  that  the  miracle  of  Cana 
was  the  first  performed  by  our  Saviour,  and  rejects,  as  wholly 
undeserving  of  credit,  the  fables  concerning  miracles  per- 
formed by  him  in  his  childhood.f 

As  recrards  the  book  now  extant,  of  which  the  author  calls 
himself  Thomas,  it  could  not  have  been  that  referred  to  by 
the  author  of  the  Homilies  on  Luke,  and  subsequently  by  some 
other  ancient  writers,  under  the  name  of  the  Gospel  of 
Thomas  ;  for  it  is  evidently  a  composition  of  the  Middle  Ages. 
All,  it  would   seem,  that  can  be  meant  by  those  modern 

of  the  alphabet  is  formed  of  three  perpendicular  lines  on  a  horizontal  line 
(the  Armenian  A  is  thus  formed,  very  like  an  inverted  m)  to  teach  us  that 
the  Beginning  of  all  things  is  one  Essence  in  three  persons.'  "  —  Voyages  en 
Perse,  tom.  ii.  pp.  269,  270,  ed.  4to,  1735. 

The  difference  between  the  Armenian  version  of  the  story  of  the  alpha- 
bet and  that  given  by  the  Marcosians  shows  the  changes  to  which  fables  Of 
this  sort  were  exposed.  IVo  stories,  different  from  each  other,  but  both 
corresponding  essentiall}'  to  the  marvel  of  lengthening  the  cedar  board,  are 
found,  one  in  the  Arabic  Gospel  (c.  39),  and  the  other  in  the  Gospel  of 
Thomas  (c.  13). 

*  Haires.,  li.  §  20,  0pp.  i.  442. 

t  Homil.  in  Joannem,  xx.  col.  132,  ed.  1697.  Homil.  xvl.  col.  108. 
Homil.  xxii.  col.  124. 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE  GOSPELS.  379 

writers  who  have  regarded  the  two  books  as  the  same,  is, 
that  the  one  anciently  called  the  Gospel  of  Tliomas  served  as 
a  basis  for  the  present  compilation  of  fables.  Ihit  the  present 
book  bears  so  thoroughly,  in  its  matter  and  style,  the  charac- 
ter of  an  age  far  later  than  that  in  which  the  Gospel  of 
Thomas  is  first  mentioned,  that,  should  we  attempt  to  sep- 
arate this  character  from  it,  we  should  find  that  nothing 
would  be  left.  Besides,  of  those  different  compilations  of 
fables  that  have  been  mentioned,  only  one  set  professes  to  have 
been  written  by  an  author  called  Thomas  ;  and  no  copy  which 
bears  his  name  assumes  to  be  called  a  gospel.  The  supposi- 
tion, that  the  ancient  Gospel  of  Thomas  was  so  remarkable  a 
book,  as  one  containing  a  collection  of  stories  respecting  our 
Lord's  childhood  must  have  been  resjarded  durinsf  the  first 
three  centuries,  cannot  be  reconciled  with  the  fiicts,  that  we 
are  not  informed  of  its  contents  by  any  ancient  writer  ;  that 
it  is  not  quoted  under  that  name  by  any  ancient  writer  ; 
that  those  who  mention  the  flibles  do  not  speak  of  the  Gospel 
of  Thomas,  and  that  those  who  mention  the  Gospel  of  Thom- 
as do  not  speak  of  the  fables.* 

*  There  is  another  book  that  has  been  reckoned  among  apocr}-phal 
■writings,  — "The  Gospel  of  Nicodemus,"  so  called,  — of -which,  when  the 
first  edition  of  this  work  was  published,  it  did  not  seem  to  me  that  there  was 
occasion  to  give  an  account  in  relation  to  the  argument  before  us,  or  that 
there  would  be  any  propriety  in  doing  so  incidentally.  But  I  have  reniarki-d 
that  one  of  the  most  noted  modern  champions  of  infidelitv  (Strauss),  in 
treating  of  the  death  of  our  Lord,  and  elsewhere,  often  quotes  it,  and  com- 
pares its  statements  with  those  of  the  evangelists ;  as  he  has  also  quoted,  in 
like  manner,  the  Protevangelion  of  James,  the  History  of  the  Nativity  of 
Mary  (see  before,  p.  374),  and  the  Gospels  of  the  Infancy. 

The  Gospel  of  Nicodemus  is  equally  fabulous  with  the  books  just  men- 
tioned. The  Greek  original  has  been  published,  from  a  collation  of  dilliri-ut 
copies,  with  elaborate  notes,  by  Thilo.  A  Latin  translation,  which  ditlors 
from  it  in  many  particulars,  mny  be  found  in  Fabricius  and  Jones.  The 
copies  of  this  book,  like  those  of  others  of  the  same  class,  vary  mucli  from 
one  another. 

According  to  the  Greek  text,  a  person  who  announces  himself  is  .\nanias, 
a  Jew,  says,  that,  in  the  reign  of  Theodosius  (his  blunders  in  chronology 


880  EVIDENCES  OP  THE 

But,  it  may  be  asked,  were  the  fables  contained  in  the 
Protevangelion  and  the  Books  of  the  Infancy  ever  really 
believed  ?     The  question  falls  into  the  same  wide  class  with 

are  such  as  to  leave  it  uncertain  whether  he  meant  the  first  or  second  emperor 
of  that  name),  he  had  discovered  tliis  boolc;  that  it  was  written  originally 
in  Hebrew  by  Nicodemus,  and  that  he  had  translated  it  into  Greek. 

The  book  Avhich  follows  this  proem  consists,  first,  of  an  account  of  the 
trial  of  our  Lord  before  Pilate,  founded  on  tlie  relations  of  the  evangelists. 
It  is  swelled  by  a  narrative  of  the  appearance  before  Pilate  of  many  who  had 
been  the  subjects  or  witnesses  of  his  miracles, — miracles  recorded  in  the 
Gospels,  —  who  are  introduced  as  testifying  in  his  favor.  Then,  after  an  ac- 
count of  his  death  and  burial,  follows  a  marvellous  story  respecting  Joseph 
of  Arimathea,  who  is  represented  as  having  been  persecuted  by  the  Jews  on 
account  of  the  honor  paid  by  him  to  the  body  of  Jesus,  and  to  have  been 
delivered  from  confinement  by  Jesus  immediately  after  his  own  resurrection; 
and  narratives  of  individuals  supposed  to  have  witnessed  the  ascension  of 
our  Lord,  and  to  have  testified  to  this  fact  before  the  Jewish  Sanhedrim. 

Here  it  seems  probable  that  the  book  originally  ended;  but,  in  some  manu- 
scripts, a  conclusion  is  found,  wiiich  consists  of  an  account  of  our  Lord's 
descent  to  Hades,  and  of  his  carr3^ing  away  thence  the  souls  of  the  just  who 
had  died  before  his  time.  It  is  given  in  the  form  of  a  deposition  before  the 
Sanhedrim  of  two  of  the  dead,  Avho  were  present  in  Hades  upon  the  occasion; 
which  deposition  they  themselves  committed  to  writing",  and  gave  into  the 
hands  of  Joseph  of  Arimathea  and  Nicodemus.  This  concluding  legend 
appears  to  have  been  the  immediate  source  of  those  conceptions  respecting 
our  Lord's  descent  to  Hell,  or  the  "  HarroAving  of  Hell,"  as  it  was  called  in 
old  English  literature,  which  were  common  in  the  latter  part  of  the  iliddle 
Ages. 

Such  is  the  Gospel  of  Nicodemus.  It  is  not  named  by  any  Greek  or 
Latin  father;  nor  is  there  any  clear  proof  of  its  existence  till  a  very  late 
period.  (See  the  Testimonia  et  Censurce  collected  b)'  Fabricius,  i.  214-237, 
and  the  Prolecjomena  of  Thilo.)  There  would  be  no  greater  want  of  good 
sense  in  quoting  a  miracle-play  of  the  Middle  Ages  for  the  purpose  of  con- 
fronting its  representations  with  those  of  the  evangelists,  than  what  appears 
in  quoting  for  this  end  the  Gospel  of  Nicodemus;  or,  it  may  be  added,  in 
thus  quoting  the  Protevangelion  of  James,  the  History  of  the  Nativity,  and 
the  Gospels  of  the  Infancy. 

But  as  this  book  has  been  mentioned,  it  may  be  well  to  enter  into  some 
further  explanation  respecting  it.  There  bas  been,  as  I  conceive,  a  great 
confusion  of  ideas  concerning  it,  arising  from  the  error  of  giving  it  the  addi- 
tional name  of  "  The  Acts  of  Pilate."  This  error  appears  to  have  had  its 
origin  from  two  passages  in  the  History  of  the  Franks  by  Gregory  of  Tours, 


GENUINENESS    OF   THE   GOSPELS.  881 

many  others,  to  all  which  a  common  answer  is  to  he  f^iven. 
AVere  the  legends  with  which  the  wliole  history  of  Cliristcn- 
dom  was  swarming  from  the  fourth  century  to  the  liftcciiih 

written  in  the  latter  part  of  the  sixth  century.  In  the  first  of  these  paspaf,'08 
(lib.  i.  cap.  21),  Gregory  makes  a  vcrj'  brief  mention  of  the  imprisoinm-nt  of 
Joseph  of  Arimathea  by  the  chief-priests  (the  story  before  referred  to),  which 
he  says  was  related  in  the  Acts  of  Pilate  {Gesta  Pilnti),  sent  by  him  to  the 
Emperor  Tiberius;  and  in  the  second  (ibid.,  c.  24)  he  mentions  tlieso  Arts 
again,  as  containing  information,  given  by  Pilate  to  the  emperor,  of  ^hc 
mnacles,  death,  and  passion  of  Jesus,  and  as  being  still  extant.  The  cir- 
cumstance, that,  in  the  lirst  passage,  he  has  referred  to  the  periiecution  of 
Joseph  of  Arimathea,  which  is  related  in  the  Gospel  of  Nicodemus,  lias  1<  d 
to  the  belief  that  this  work  is,  or  Avas  originally,  the  same  book  with  tlie  Acts 
of  Pilate.  But  the  argument  would  in  no  case  avail  to  prove  this  identity, 
since  the  author  of  the  Gospel  of  Nicodcnuis  may,  equally  with  (Jregory, 
have  derived  the  stor}',  directly  or  indirectly,  from  some  book  whicli  bdic 
that  title.  It  may  even  be  that  Gregory  himself  furnished  him  witli  tho 
germ  of  his  fable. 

Here  two  questions  arise:  What  was  the  original  meaning  of  that  title, 
"  The  Acts  of  Pilate  "  ?  and  how  must  it  be  understood  in  relation  to  tlie 
subject  before  us? 

The  accounts  which  the  Roman  provincial  governors  were  accustomed  to 
send  to  the  emperor  of  their  own  doings,  and  of  remarkable  events  in  their 
respective  provinces,  Avere  sometimes  called  Acts  {Ada  in  Latin,  or,  as 
written  in  Greek  letters, 'A/cra).  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  Pilate  did 
send  home  such  an  account  relating  to  Jesus.  Rumors  concerning  him  must 
have  reached  Rome;  and  his  reputed  miracles  and  claims,  and  the  circum- 
stances connected  with  his  history  and  death,  were  not  matters  to  be  passed 
over  in  silence  in  the  reports  of  a  procurator  who  was  under  the  eye  of 
Tiberius. 

Accordingly,  Justin  and  TertuUian,  in  their  Apologies,  refer  brietly  in  gen- 
eral terms  to  the  account  of  Pilate,  which  Justin  calls  his  Acts,  a.s  confinn- 
ing  their  statements  respecting  the  miracles  and  death  of  Jesus.  But  it  is 
not  probable  that  either  of  them  had  seen  an  authentic  copy  of  those  Acts, 
or  that  such  copies  were  ever  in  circulation.  They  either  spoke  from  private 
information,  direct  or  indirect,  or  perhaps  inferred,  from  the  nature  of  ti.e 
case,  that  the  account  given  by  Pilate  must  tend  to  confirm  their  own. 

In  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century,  according  to  the  relation  of  Liisc- 
bius  (Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  ix.  c.  5:  conf.  lib.  i.  cc.  9,  11),  during  the  persecu- 
tion «nder  Maximin,  pretended  Acts  of  Pilate,  full  of  cahnnmes  agamst  our 
Lord,  were  fabricated  and  zealously  circulated. 

At^erward,  as  we  learn  from  Epiphanius  (Ila^res.,  l,  Opp-  i-  420).  th<ro 
were  extant  among  Christians,  in  the  fourth  century,  other  epurious  Acta  .f 


882  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

really  believed  ?  How  was  it  with  the  mythology  and  marvels 
of  Greek  and  Roman  Paganism,  interwoven  as  they  were 
with  the  religious  sentiments  and  rites  and  daily  usages  of 

Pilate,  which  were  appealed  to  by  certain  heretics,  in  proof  that  our  Lord 
suffered  on  the  eighth  of  the  Calends  of  April,  the  anniversary  of  which  day 
they  commemorated.  Epiphanius  says  (but  whether  truly  or  not  may  be  a 
question)  that  he  had  seen  copies  of  those  Acts  giving  a  different  date.  The 
author  of  a  Homily  ascribed  to  Chrysostom  (Chrysostomi  0pp.  v.  942,  ed. 
Savil.)  says  that  the  day  of  our  Lord's  death  was  known,  from  the  Acts  of 
Pilate,  to  be  the  eighth  of  the  Calends  of  April.  The  same  date  is  also 
found  in  the  Gospel  of  Nicodemus. 

This  is  the  sum  of  all  the  information  concerning  any  real  or  pretended 
Acts  of  Pilate  furnished  by  all  the  writers  before  Gregory  of  Tours. 

No  one  can  be  supposed  to  imagine,  that  the  Gospel  of  Nicodemus  is 
either  the  authentic  Acts  of  Pilate  referred  to  by  Justin  and  TertuUian.  or 
those  spurious  Acts  which  were  put  into  circulation  during  the  persecution 
under  Maximin.  It  follows,  that  those  who  believe  the  Gospel  to  be  the 
same  book  with  the  Acts  must  believe  it  to  be  the  Acts  of  which  Epiphanius 
speaks,  of  the  contents  of  which  we  know  nothing,  except  that  they  specified 
a  particular  day  as  that  of  our  Lord's  death. 

But  this  belief  must  be  entertained  in  opposition  to  the  clear  and  decisive 
evidence  furnished  by  the  book  itself. 

The  Greek  Gospel  published  by  Thilo  begins  with  a  statement  that  the 
Hebrew  original  Avas  found  and  translated  into  Greek  in  the  seventeenth 
year  of  Theodosius,  the  first  or  second  of  that  name.  At  the  end  of  the 
Latin  version  edited  by  Fabricius,  Theodosius  the  Great  is  said  to  have 
discovered  it  in  the  PrjKtorium  of  Pilate  at  Jerusalem,  which  extraordinary 
story  shows  that  the  times  of  Theodosius  must  have  been  to  the  author  of 
this  version  a  fabulous  age.  No  copy  of  the  work  assigns  an  earlier  date 
for  its  discovery. 

But  no  one  will  credit  the  fable  of  the  Hebrew  original  of  the  book.  The 
Greek  text  is  the  original;  and  this,  it  appears,  claims  for  itself  no  higher 
antiquit}'  than  the  end  of  the  fourth  century  or  the  beginning  of  the  fifth. 
It  is  probably  of  much  later  date.  But,  on  its  own  showing,  it  could  not 
have  been  the  book  quoted,  as  Epiphanius  reports,  under  the  name  of  "  The 
Acts  of  Pilate,"  by  heretics  in  the  fourth  centur^^ 

The  character  of  the  Gospel  of  Nicodemus  is  such  as  to  render  the  sup- 
position utterly  incredible,  that  any  one  could  have  put  it  forth  under  the 
name  of  "  The  Acts  of  Pilate;  "  that  title  being  understood,  as  it  undoubtedly 
was  during  the  first  four  centuries,  to  denote  an  official  account  of  his  doings 
concerning  Jesus  sent  by  Pilate  to  the  emperor.  It  has  nothing  of  the 
nature  or  form  of  an  official  communication.  It  is  a  legendary  fable.  There 
is  no  inscription  to  Tiberius,  nor  any  address  to  him  throughout  the  book. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  383 

tbe  most  enlightened  nations  of  antiquity?  ILid  tlio  E^^yp- 
tians  a  true  faith  tliat  a  particular  bull  was  their  god  Apis  ? 
Did  they  believe  in  the  divinity  of  the  Crocodile  and  the 
Ibis  ?  What  was  their  state  of  mind  in  respect  to  their  otluT 
gods,  — qualia  demens  JEgyjttns  portcntn  colchat,  —  with  all 
the  strange  and  disgusting  histories  attached  to  them?  How 
has  it  been  with  the  Hindus,  one  of  the  few  nations  out  of 
the  European  family  which  have  approached  to  European 
intelligence  ?  Have  they  believed  or  not  the  enormous  fables 
—  that  even  a  healthy  imagination  shrinks  from  —  which  are 
reported  as  true  in  their  sacred  books?  How  much  of  the 
history  of  human  opinions  on  all  the  higher  subjects  of 
thought  is  a  history  of  human  errors,  —  often  of  errors  the 
most  repulsive  to  reason,  yet  widely  prevailing,  and  obsti- 
nately maintained  from  century  to  century  !  Have  not  those 
errors  been  believed  ? 

The  general  answer  to  be  given  to  these  questions  em- 
braces the  particular  reply  to  the  inquiry  by  which  they 
were  suggested,  respecting  the  fables  of  the  Protevangelion 
and  of  the  Books  of  the  Infancy.  Throughout  the  history  of 
mankind,  we  find,  as  regards  both  facts  and  doctrines,  the 
broadest  exhibitions  of  credulity,  which,  if  the  delusion  have 


Nor  is  it  pretended  in  the  book  itself  that  Pilate  was  its  author.  Ac- 
cording to  its  own  statement,  it  was  composed  by  Nicodemus.  In  the  Greek 
copies,  there  is  no  mention  of  Pilate  as  having  anything  to  do  with  it. 
Nor  does  it  appear,  that  the  title,  "Acts  of  Pilate,"  was  given  it  in  any  manu- 
script, Greek  or  Latin.  In  an  addition  made  in  Latin  copies  (Tliilo,  p.  7t>8), 
it  is  said,  that  Pilate,  having  been  informed  by  Jnseph  of  Arimatlioa  and 
Nicodemus  of  all  that  passed  in  the  Jewish  Sanhedrim,  "wrote  all  which 
had  been  done  and  said  by  the  Jews  concerning  Jesus  {omnia  qu(K  (/rstn  tt 
dicta  sunt  de  Jesu  a  Judceis),  and  put  all  the  words  in  the  public  books  of  hi^ 
Prjstorium."  This  stor}',  and  the  words  "omnia  quae  f/esln,"'  may  perhaps 
have  countenanced  the  error  of  calling  it  the  Acts  of  Pilate  ( Gestn  Pihiti). 
But  the  only  title  which  could  with  any  plausibility  be  derived  from  the 
passage  would  be  "  Acts  of  the  Jews  "  (  Gesta  Jiulceorum),  meaning,  in  a  sense 
of  the  word  Gesta  familiar  in  the  ^Dddle  Ages,  "Deeds  (or  Doings)  of  the 
Jeiiys."  —  Note  to  Second  Edition,  1847. 


884  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

passed  away,  or  if  we  are  out  of  the  sphere  of  its  influence, 
we  can  hardly  help  regarding  as  monstrous  and  unnatural,  till 
we  recollect  how  prevalent  they  have  been,  and  consequently 
how  consistent  with  our  common  nature.  There  are  other 
avenues,  more  trodden  than  the  narrow  way  of  reason,  by 
which  opinions  enter  the  mind.  What  impresses  the  imagi- 
nation, affects  the  feelings,  and  is  blended  with  habitual  asso- 
ciations, is  received  by  the  generality  as  true.  Fables 
however  absurd,  conceptions  however  irrational,  even  un- 
meaning forms  of  words,  which  have  been  early  presented  to 
the  mind,  and  with  which  it  has  been  long  conversant,  make 
as  vivid  an  impression  upon  it  as  realities,  and  assume  their 
character.  No  opinions  inhere  more  strongly  than  those 
about  which  the  reason  is  not  exercised ;  for  they  are  unas- 
sailable by  argument.  It  would  be  well  to  have  different 
words  to  distinguish  between  the  two  different  states  of 
mind,  in  the  one  of  which  we  receive  conceptions  as  true 
without  reasoning,  while  in  the  other  our  assent  is  given 
through  an  exercise  of  judgment.  The  term  to  credit  is  now 
used  in  one  of  its  significations  merely  as  synonymous  with 
the  term  to  believe.  We  might  confine  the  use  of  the  former 
term  to  denoting  the  first  kind  of  assent,  —  assent  without  the 
exercise  of  the  understanding ;  and  employ  the  latter  only  to 
signify  a  faith  that  relies  on  reason.  Using  the  words  in 
these  senses,  we  might  say  that  the  mass  of  errors  which 
have  been  credited  bears  a  vast  disproportion  to  the  amount 
of  truths  which  have  been  believed.  Nor  shall  we  find  it 
hard  to  conceive,  nor  regard  it  as  a  very  extraordinary  fact, 
that  the  fables  respecting  the  mother  of  our  Lord  and  our 
Lord  himself  have  been  credited,  as  well  as  the  doctrine  of 
transubstantiation.  Undoubtedly  the  world  has  grown  wiser ; 
or,  rather,  a  small  portion  of  the  world  has  grown  wiser ;  and 
we  may  hope  that  the  light  will  become  less  troubled,  stead- 
ier, and  brighter,  and  spread  itself  more  widely.  Aliud  ex 
alio  clarescet.     Res  accendent  lumina  rebus. 


GENUINENESS    OF   THE   GOSPELS.  385 

From  what  has  appeared  in  this  cliaptcr,  it  is  evident  tliat 
the  Gnostics  did  not  oppose  to  the  four  Gospels  any  otlier 
history  of  Christ's  ministry  ;  or,  to  state  tlie  conchision  in 
more  general  terms,  it  is  evident,  that,  during  the  first  throe 
centuries,  no  history  of  Christ's  ministry  at  variance  with 
the  four  Gospels  was  in  existence.  The  history  of  his  min- 
istry, such  as  it  is  contained  in  them,  or  in  some  one  of  them, 
served  as  a  common  basis  for  the  opinions  of  all  Christians, 
both  catholic  and  heretical. 

If  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews,  in  its  uncorrupted  state, 
was,  as  we  have  seen  reason  to  believe,  the  Gospel  of  Mat- 
thew, then  there  is  no  probability  that  any  work  besides  those 
of  the  evangelists,  professing  to  be  an  original  history  of  our 
Lord's  ministry,  was  ever  in  circulation  after  the  appearance 
of  the  first  three  Gospels,  —  somewhere,  probably,  about  the 
year  65.  Luke  mentions  imperfect  accounts  which  preceded 
his  own.  But,  after  the  appearance  of  the  first  three  Gos- 
pels, though  the  copies  of  such  accounts  might  not  be 
destroyed,  they  would  cease  to  be  multiplied  and  circulated. 
We  accordingly  find  no  trace  of  their  existence  subsequent 
to  the  notice  of  them  by  Luke. 

It  may  seem  again  as  if  nothing  further  were  to  be  said ; 
but,  in  order  to  exhaust  the  general  subject  we  are  consider- 
ing, a  few  more  remarks  remain  to  be  made  concerning  some 
supposed  gospels,  formerly  mentioned,  which  Eichhorn  main- 
tains to  have  been  in  common  use  during  the  second  century 
previously  to  the  use  of  the  catholic  Gospels,  or  even  to  the 
existence  of  the  latter  in  their  present  state.*  I  have 
already  had  occasion  to  take  notice  of  all  the  titles  which  he 
enumerates,  except  two.  These  two,  to  which  we  will  now 
attend,  are  "gospels  used  by  Tatian  in  composing  his  Dia- 
tessaron,"  and  "The  Gospel  of  Cerinthus."t 


*  See  pp.  61-62:  comp.  p.  5,  seqq. 

t  Cerinthi  Evangelium.    Eichhorn's  Einleit.  in  das  X.T.,  i.  107. 
25 


386  EVIDENCES  OF   THE 

Tatian,  the  disciple  of  Justin  Martyr,  and  the  contempo- 
rary of  Irena^us,  became  an  ascetic,  and  a  Gnostic  of  the 
Valentinian  school.  Respecting  his  Diatessaron,  Theodo- 
ret,  as  we  have  formerly  remarked,*  speaks  of  his  having 
found  two  hundred  copies  of  it  among  the  Christians  of  his 
diocese,  which  he  removed,  and  supplied  their  place  by  copies 
of  the  Gospels.  He  says,  "Tatian  put  together  what  is 
called  '  The  Gospel  out  of  the  Four  '  "  (that  is,  a  gospel  com- 
posed out  of  the  four  Gospels,  a- Diatessaron),  "cutting 
away  the  genealogies,  and  all  else  which  shows  that  the  Lord 
was  born  of  the  race  of  David  according  to  the  flesh.  And 
this  book  is  used,  not  only  by  those  of  his  sect,  but  by  those 
who  adhere  to  the  doctrines  of  the  apostles ;  they  not  know- 
ing the  fraud  in  its  composition,  but  using  it,  in  their  simpli- 
city, as  a  compendious  book."jt  It  is  evident,  that  Theodoret, 
with  the  book  before  his  eyes,  regarded  it  as  a  history  of 
Christ  compiled  from  the  four  Gospels ;  nor  does  he  object 
any  thing  to  it  but  the  omissions  which  he  specifies.  Euse- 
bius  gives  the  same  account  of  the  composition  of  the  book 
from  the  four  Gospels ;  remarking  in  connection,  that  the 
Encratites  (of  which  sect,  he  says,  Tatian  was  the  founder) 
used  the  Gospels.  $  But,  in  opposition  to  all  testimony  and 
probability,  it  was  fancied  by  Eichhorn  that  Tatian  did  not 
use  our  present  four  Gospels,  but  four  others  very  like 
them,  §  —  so  like  them,  it  appears,  that  they  were  mistaken 
for  them.  There  is  not  a  sufficient  show  of  argument  in 
support  of  this  conjecture  to  admit  of  any  particular  confuta- 
tion. It  may  be  worth  while  to  discuss  it,  when  the  suppo- 
sition can  be  rendered  plausible,  that,  in  the  time  of  Irenreus, 
simultaneously  with  our  four  Gospels,  four  other  gospels 
existed  very  like  them,  but  not  the  same.  || 

*  See  p.  32.  t  Hn?ret.  Fab  ,  lib.  i  n.  20,  0pp.  iv.  208. 

t  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  iv.  c.  29.         §  Einleit.  in  das  N.T.,  i.  110-113. 
II  "  Talian's  Gospel,"  says  Eichhorn,  "  was  called  by  many  the  Gospel  of 
the  Hebrews;  "  and  he  asks,  "  Whence  could  this  name  have  arisen,  except 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  387 

The  Diatessaron  of  Tatian,  then,  is  one  among  the  abun- 
dant proofs  which  the  theosophic  Gnostics  made  of  tlie  four 
Gospels,  and  of  the  authority  which  they  ascribed  to  them. 

We  proceed  to  the  supposed  gospel  of  Cerlntbus.  Eich- 
horn  quotes,  concerning  this,  two  passages  from  Epiplianius, 
who  is  his  sole  authority. 

That  writer,  in  his  account  of  the  Cerinthians,  affirms  that 
they  "  used  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  not  complete,  however, 
but  in  part  only;"*  and,  in  his  account  of  the  Ebionites,  lie 
says  that  Cerinthus  used  the  same  GosjDel  of  Matthew  with 
the  Ebionites,  except  that  he  retained  the  genealogy  for  the 
purpose  of  proving  from  it  that  Jesus  was  the  son  of  Joseph 
and  Mary.f 

Regarding  Epiphanius  as  a  trustworthy  writer,  and  as 
being  alone  a  sufficient  representative  of  Christian  antiquity, 
Eichhorn  asserts  that  "  it  is  undeniable  that  Christian  anti- 

from  the  circumstance  that  that  gospel  sensed  for  its  basis?"    The  only 
authorit}'-  for  his  assertion  is  a  passage  of  Epiphanius. 

Epiphanius,  as  his  text  now  stands,  says  (Hirres.,  xlvi.  §1,  Opp  i.  391), 
"From  Tatian,  tliose  who  are  called  Encratites  derive  their  origin,  partakinfj 
of  the  same  venom;  and  it  is  said  that  '  The  Gospel  out  of  the  Four,'  which 
some  call  'The  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,'  was  made  by  him."  liiit 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Diatessaron  of  Tatian  and  the  Gospel  of  the 
Hebrews  were  very  ditferent  books;  and  the  supposition  that  tlie  Hebrew 
Gospel  of  the  Jewish  Christians  was  written  in  Greek  by  a  Gnostic,  toward 
the  close  of  the  second  century,  is  too  gross  an  absurdity  for  any  one  fo  have 
entertained.  Nor  is  there  the  least  probability  that  the  title  of  "  The  Gospel 
according  to  the  Hebrews  "  was  ever  common  to  the  book  to  which  it  prop- 
erly belonged  and  to  Tatian's  Diatessaron.  If  the  text  of  Epiphaniu><  bo 
correct,  his  assertion  can  only  be  reckoned  as  one  among  his  nuniberlcsg 
blunders.  But  it  seems  most  probable,  that  his  text  is  corrupt:  an<l  that, 
instead  of /cara  'Y.dpaiov^,  "according  to  the  Hebrews,"  we  should  rend 
Kara  'EyKfjarlTag,  "  according  to  the  Encratites."  This  will  accord  with  his 
speaking  of  Ttitian's  Diatessaron  in  immediate  connection  with  his  mention 
of  the  Encratites  as  deriving  their  origin  from  him.  Thoy,  of  course,  were 
likely  to  make  particular  use  of  his  Diatessaron ;  and  this  therefore  might 
naturally  be  called  by  some  "  The  Gospel  according  to  the  Encratites." 
*  Hares.,  xxviii.  §  5,  p.  113.  t  Haeres.,  xxx.  §  14,  p.  138. 


388  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

quity  ascribed  to  Cerintlius  the  use  of  Matthew's  Gospel,  but 
with  a  shorter  text;"*  and  he  infers  that  the  Gospel  of 
Cerinthus  was  an  earlier  gospel  than  that  of  Matthew ;  that 
is  to  say,  the  Gospel  which  we  now  call  Matthew's  in  a  yet 
imperfect  state.f 

It  is  needless  to  inquire  by  what  process  this  might  be 
inferred  from  the  words  of  Epiphanius,  supposing  him  to  be 
a  writer  of  good  authority.  As  we  have  formerly  seen,  % 
he  is  entitled  to  no  credit  in  his  account  of  the  Cerinthians. 
He  has  manufactured  a  sect,  to  which,  ascribing  the  doctrines 
of  the  Ebionites,  he  has  likewise  ascribed  the  use  of  the 
Gospel  of  the  Ebionites. 

But  there  is  another  passage  of  Epiphanius,  which  Eich- 
horn  has  omitted  to  notice.  It  is  in  his  account  of  the  Alogfi. 
"  Luke,"  he  says,  in  the  first  words  of  his  Gospel,  "  since 
many  have  undertaken,"  —  that  is,  to  write  gospels,  —  "  points 
to  some  undertakers,  as  Cerinthus,  Merinthus,  and  others."  § 
He  had  before  told  us  that  Cerinthus  and  his  followers  used 
the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  with  some  omissions.     He  here  tells 


*  Einleit.  in  das  N.T.,  i.  110.  —  It  may  be  worth  while  here  to  take  notice 
of  what  we  might  call  an  extraordinary  oversight  of  Eichhorn,  if  such  over- 
sights did  not  often  occur  in  the  Avorks  of  the  modern  theologians  of  Ger- 
many. Cerinthus  is  represented,  by  all  the  ancient  writers  who  pretend  to 
give  an  account  of  him,  as  teaching  that  Jesus  was  the  son  of  Joseph  and 
Mary.  But  Eichhorn,  after  quoting  his  authority,  Epiphanius,  to  this  effect, 
proceeds,  a  few  lines  after  (p.  108),  to  observe,  that,  as  the  gospel  of  Cerin- 
thus had  the  genealogy  of  Jesus,  so  "  it  probably  had  also  the  whole  evange- 
Uum  infanti<B  (gospel  of  the  infancy)  which  is  now  contained  in  the  first  two 
chapters  of  Matthew."  That  is  to  say,  Eichhorn  supposes,  that,  though 
Cerinthus  rejected  the  belief  of  the  miraculous  conception  of  our  Lord,  he 
received  the  account  of  it  as  authentic. 

It  is  by  conjectures  which  have  more  or  less  of  a  like  character,  and  by 
critics  equally  inconsiderate,  that  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  the 
Gospels  have  been  assailed  in  modern  times  in  Germany.  Among  those 
critics,  I  know  of  none  Avho  is  to  be  ranked  higher  than  Eichhorn  for  theo- 
logical knowledge,  clearness  of  mind,  and  power  of  reasoning. 

t  Einleit.  in  das  N.T.,  i.  109.  X  See  pp.  199,  200. 

§  Haeres.,  li.  §  7,  p.  428. 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE  GOSPELS.  389 

US  that  Cerinthus  wrote  a  gospel  before  Luke  wrote  liis. 
Following  him,  therefore,  as  a  well-informed  and  crediblo 
writer,  and  putting  his  different  accounts  together,  we  must 
conclude  that  Cerinthus  was  the  original  composer  of  Mat- 
thew's Gospel.  Reasoning  after  a  fasliion  with  which  every 
one  acquainted  with  modern  German  theology  must  be  famil- 
iar, we  might  go  on  to  infer,  as  highly  probable,  that  !Merin- 
thus  was  the  author  of  the  Gospel  of  Mark.  But  here  wo 
should  be  met  by  a  difficulty,  arising  from  what  Epiphanius 
elsewhere  says,  that  he  did  not  know  whether  Cerinthus  and 
Merinthus  were  different  persons,  or  only  different  names  of 
the  same  person.*  But  the  existence  of  the  very  early 
gospel  of  Merinthus,  which,  I  believe,  no  one  has  yet  under- 
taken to  patronize,  rests  on  as  good  ground  as  that  of  the 
gospel  of  Cerinthus. 

In  pursuing  the  inquiry  concerning  the  supposed  existence 
of  Gnostic  gospels,  we  have  enabled  ourselves  to  form  a 
correct  judgment  of  the  character  and  importance  of  all 
those  books  which  have  been  called  apocryphal  gospels,  and 
of  their  bearing  on  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  those 
four  books  which  in  ancient  times  were  universally  recognized 
as  the  original  histories  of  Christ's  ministry,  given  by  his 
immediate  followers,  or  those  who  derived  their  knowledge 
from  them.  On  the  subject  of  apocryphal  gospels,  there 
have  been  vague  and  incorrect  notions,  that  have  continued, 
in  one  form  or  other,  down  to  our  time,  among  those  who 
have  been  disposed  to  invalidate  the  authority  of  the  four 
Gospels.  They  cannot,  perhaps,  be  more  clearly  or  more 
briefly  explained  than  in  the  words  of  the  Jew  Orobio,  in  his 
celebrated  controversy  with  Limborch  respecting  the  truth 
of  Christianity.  "  There  were,"  he  says,  "  besides  the  four 
Gospels  many  others,  some  of    which  are  referred    to    by 


*  Hajres.,  xxviii.  §  8,  p.  115. 


390  EVIDENCES  OF  THE 

Jerome*  and  other  fathers,  which  were  the  foundation  of 
different  heresies.  Such  were  the  gospel  to  the  Egyptians, 
that  to  the  Hebrews,  that  of  Thomas,  that  of  Bartholomew,t 
that  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  t  that  of  Basilides,  that  of  Har- 
pocras,  §  and  others  that  it  would  be  superfluous  to  mention, 
every  one  of  which  had  its  adherents,  and  gave  occasion  to 
dispute.  All  these  gospels,  conflicting  with  one  another  in 
regard  to  the  truth  of  the  history,  were  in  the  course  of  time, 
and  by  the  authority  of  councils,  rejected ;  the  four  only  being 
admitted  in  Europe,  as  corresponding  best  with  each  other."  || 
On  the  ground  of  such  statements,  it  has  been  argued,  in 
effect,  that  there  were  originally  many  various  accounts  of 
Christ's  ministry,  difliering  much  from  one  another,  so  that 
the  truth  was  altogether  unsettled;  and  that  our  four  Gospels, 
which  had  no  particular  claim  to  credit,  obtained  general 
currency,  to  the  exclusion  of  other  works  of  the  same  kind, 
in  consequence  only  of  their  finding  favor  with  the  prevalent 
party  among  Christians,  and  hence  being  sanctioned  by  the 
decrees  of  councils.  Respecting  this  supposition,  it  is  here 
unnecessary  to  recur  to  that  evidence  for  the  universal  recep- 
tion of  the  four  Gospels  by  the  great  body  of  Christians, 
which  shows  it  to  be  altogether  untenable.     In  the  present 


*  The  imperfect  and  erroneous  view  of  the  subject  taken  by  Orobio  is 
SufFiciently  evident  from  this  reference  to  Jerome.  Books  which  could  have 
come  into  competition  with  the  four  Gospels  must  have  been  very  conspicu- 
ous books  long  before  the  time  of  Jerome. 

t  This  title  is  first  mentioned  by  Jerome  in  his  Proem  to  Matthew's  Gos- 
pel.    The  existence  of  any  book  answering  to  it  is  doubtful. 

J  This  was  another  title  for  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews.  Sec  before, 
p.  369,  note. 

§  By  Harpocras  must,  it  would  seem,  be  meant  Carpocrates;  and  Orobio 
probably  had  in  mind  an  indistinct  recollection  of  the  story  of  Epiphanius 
(Ha;res.,  xxx.  §  14,  p.  138),  that  Carpocrates  used  the  Gospel  of  Mattliew, 
corrupted,  in  common  with  the  Ebionites.  Except  this  title,  and  that  of 
"  The  Gospel  of  Bartholomew,"  the  others  enumerated  by  Orobio  have  been 
already  remarked  upon. 

II  The  passage  is  quoted  by  Fabricius,  i.  146. 


GENUINENESS    OF   THE   GOSPELS.  391 

chapter,  we  have  examined,  or  adverted  to,  every  book,  real 
or  supposed,  passing  under  tlie  name  of  a  gospel,  tlic  title  of 
which  is  mentioned  by  any  writer  before  Epiphaiiius.  Among 
them  are  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews  and  tbe  Gospel  of 
Marcion.  The  existence  of  neither  of  these  books  can 
weaken  the  proof  of  the  authority  and  general  reception  of 
the  four  Gospels.  But  it  would  be  idle  to  suppose  tliat  anv 
other  of  those  which  have  been  mentioned  was  brought  into 
competition  witb  the  four  Gospels  as  a  different  history  of 
Christ's  ministry ;  and  still  more  idle  to  suppose  this  of  any 
book,  the  very  title  of  which  is  not  mentioned  till  after  the 
middle  of  the  fourth  century.* 

The  main  purpose  of  our  inquiry  respecting  the  Gnostics 
has  been  to  determine  whether  they  afford  evidence  for  the 
genuineness  of  the  Gospels.  That  they  do  afford  such  evi- 
dence has  abundantly  appeared.  But  something  remains  to 
be  said.  In  the  next  chapter,  we  shall  conclude  with  bring- 
ing into  one  view  the  facts  already  adduced,  in  connection 
with  others  not  yet  adverted  to,  and  attending  to  the  rehitions 
and  bearings  of  the  whole. 

*  A  degree  of  confusion  and  misapprehension  respecting  the  subject  of 
apocryphal  gospels  may  have  been  produced  by  the  fact,  that  Fabricius 
tfives  an  account  of  such  gospels  under  fifty  titles,  which,  as  the  same  book 
sometimes  passed  under  two  or  more  diflerent  titles,  he  supposes  m:iy  repre- 
sent about  forty  books  (i.  335,*  note).  But  in  making  this  collection  he  luis 
taken  a  very  wide  range.  He  has  included  writings  which  have  no  daun  to 
the  title  of  "gospel,"  either  in  the  ancient  or  modern  sense  of  the  wonl;  and 
he  has  brought  his  catalogue  down  to  the  year  1600,  mentioning  a  History 
of  Christ  in  Persian,  published  that  year  by  the  missionary  Jerome  Xavier, 
for  the  benefit  of  his  converts.  Many  of  the  titles  collected  by  him  rest  on 
no  good  authority.  Some  evidently  had  tht'ir  origin  in  ignorance  and  mis- 
apprehension. With  the  exception  of  those  which  have  been  remarked  upon, 
they  are  to  be  found  only  in  writers  from  Kpiphanius  downwanl.  Their 
alphabetical  arrangement,  however,  tends,  at  first  view,  to  give  the  im|)res- 
sion,  thiit  one  deserves  as  much  attention  as  another.  Put,  of  the  wi>rk!i 
mentioned  by  Fabricius,  all  that  can  with  any  reason  be  sujjposed  to  Imvo 
been  extant  before  the  middle  of  the  third  century  have  been  taken  notico 
of  in  this  chapte*- 


CHAPTER    IX. 

CONCliUDING  STATEMENT  OF  THE  EVIDENCE  FOR  THE  GENU- 
INENESS OF  THE  GOSPELS  AFFORDED  BY  THE  GNOSTICS. 

The  facts  that  have  been  brought  forward  show  in  what 
manner  the  Gospels  were  regarded  by  the  Gnostics.  It  has 
appeared,  that  the  theosophic  Gnostics  recognized  the  author- 
ity of  the  four  Gospels  in  common  with  the  catholic  Chris- 
tians ;  while  the  Gospel  used  by  the  Marcionites  was  essentially 
the  same  with  the  Gospel  of  Luke.  But  we  will  now  review 
those  facts  in  connection  with  some  others  which  have  not 
yet  been  stated,  and  consider  more  particularly  what  infer- 
ences may  be  drawn  from  the  whole.  In  pursuing  the 
subject,  we  will  first  confine  our  attention  to  the  Marcion- 
ites. 

An  unjustifiable  application  of  a  principle  common  to  all 
the  Gnostics  *  led  the  Marcionites  to  reject  certain  passages 
from  the  text  of  Luke,  and  to  decline  any  appeal  to  the 
authority  of  the  three  remaining  Gospels.  But  the  very 
principle  on  which  they  proceeded,  that  the  apostles  and 
their  followers  were  under  the  influence  of  Jewish  prejudices, 
implies  that  they  recognized  the  genuineness  of  the  passages, 
and  of  the  Gospels,  which  they  rejected.  It  may  be  further 
remarked,  that  their  having  recourse  to  the  mutilation   of 

*  See  before,  p.  332,  seqq. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  393 

Luke's  Gospel  shows  that  no  other  history  of  Christ's  minis- 
try existed  more  favorable  to  their  doctrines ;  that  in  the 
first  half  of  the  second  century,  when  Marcion  lived,  there 
was  no  Gnostic  gospel  in  being,  to  which  he  could  appeal. 

The  fact,  that  Marcion's  gospel  was  founded  on  that  of 
Luke,  proves  the  existence  and  authority  of  Luke's  Gospel  at 
the  time  when  Marcion  lived.  We  may  therefore  recur  to 
the  reasoning  which  has  before  been  used,  to  show  that  the 
existence  and  authority  of  any  one  of  the  four  Gospels  at  a 
particular  period  implies  the  contemporaneous  existence  and 
authority  of  the  other  three.*  In  j^roving  their  genuineness, 
if  that  reasoning  be  correct,  they  may  be  regarded  as  virtually 
one  book.  Had  any  other  of  the  Gospels  not  existed  together 
with  that  of  Luke  at  the  commencement  of  the  second  cen- 
tury,'or  had  it  not  then  been  regarded  as  of  authority,  it 
never  could  afterward  have  attained  to  the  high  estimation  in 
which  Luke's  Gospel  was  held. 

We  will  next  attend  to  the  broad  distinction  that  was  made 
between  the  Marcionites  and  the  theosophic  Gnostics  in  con- 
sequence of  the  fact,  that  the  Marcionites  admitted,  as  of 
authority  among  the  Gospels,  only  their  mutilated  copy  of 
Luke.  On  this  ground  Irenaeus,  as  we  have  seen.f  declined 
controverting  their  opinions  in  connection  with  those  of  the 
other  Gnostics  ;  and  Tertullian,  in  confuting  them,  expressly 
limited  himself  to  the  use  of  their  own  gospel.  The  distinc- 
tion was,  that  the  Marcionites  recognized  only  the  authority 
of  their  own  gospel;  while  the  other  Gnostics,  as  is  thus 
testified  by  their  opponents,  appealed  equally  with  the  catho- 
lic Christians  to  the  authority  of  all  the  four  Gospels. 

This  is  the  concession  of  their  opponents.  l>ut  we  will  go 
on,  and  see  what  further  evidence  of  the  fact  exists. 

I  have  repeatedly  had  occasion  to  refer  to  the  letter  of 


*  See  pp.  102-107.  t  P-  209 


894  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

Ptolemy,  the  Valentinian,  to  Flora,  in  which  he  gives  an 
account  of  his  doctrines  respecting  the  Supreme  Being  and 
the  Creator.  In  this  letter  he  says,  that  he  shall  prove  what 
he  asserts  "  by  the  words  of  the  Saviour,  which  only  are  an 
infallible  guide  to  the  apprehension  of  the  truth ; "  and  he 
accordingly  confirms  his  positions  throughout  by  quotations 
from  the  Gospels.  In  the  conclusion  of  the  letter,  he  intro- 
duces the  mention  of  those  apostolic  traditions  to  which  the 
Gnostics  appealed,  but  speaks  of  them  only  as  an  additional 
and  subordinate  means  of  knowledge.  He  promises  to  give 
further  explanations,  founded  "  on  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles 
received  by  tradition ;  every  thing  at  the  same  time  being 
confirmed  by  the  teaching  of  the  Saviour,  which  must  be 
taken  as  the  standard."  Heracleon,  another  Valentinian,  who 
lived  in  the  second  century,  and  was  highly  esteemed,  as  we 
are  told,  by  those  of  his  own  sect,  wrote  a  commentary  on 
the  Gospel  of  John,  which  is  often  quoted  by  Origen*  The 
views  of  the  Basihdians  respecting  the  Gospels  may  be  in- 
ferred from  the  fact,  that  Basilides  himself  wrote  a  commen- 
tary on  the  Gospels.*  Tatian,  who  was  a  Gnostic,  composed, 
as  we  have  seen,  a  Harmony  of  the  Gospels. f  And,  in  the 
Doctrina  Orientalis,  the  Gnostic  writer  aj^peals  to  the  Gos- 
pels to  countenance  his  opinions  as  freely  as  a  catholic  Chris- 
tian might  have  done,  and  appeals  to  no  other  history  of 
Christ.  It  is  throughout  to  be  kept  in  mind,  that  the  theo- 
sophic  Gnostics,  while  they  thus  used  the  Gospels,  used  no 
other  books  of  the  same  class  as  of  like  authority  ;  that  they 
did  not,  any  more  than  the  catholic  Christians,  bring  any 
other  history  of  Christ's  ministry  into  competition  with 
them. 

In  treating  of  the  doctrines  of  the  theosophic  Gnostics,  1 
have  incidentally  given  examples  of  the  use  made  by  them 

*  See  before,  pp.  352,  358.  f  See  before,  pp.  385-387. 


GENUINENESS   OF  THE   GOSPELS.  305 

of  passages  of  the  Gospels.  Many  more  might  he  adihiccd. 
But  a  particular  enumeration  of  passages  to  wliicli  tlicy 
appealed  is  unnecessary,  since  their  use  of  the  Gospels  is 
fully  acknowledged  hy  their  catholic  opponents. 

Irena3us  begins  his  work  by  charging  them  with  deceiving 
men  by  "  corrupting  the  oracles  of  the  Lord,  being  evil  inter- 
preters of  what  h  IS  been  well  spoken."  *  He  often  remarks 
on  their  ingenuity  in  perverting  the  Scriptures.  Speaking 
particularly  of  the  Valentinians,  he  says,  "  You  see  the 
method  they  use  to  deceive  themselves,  wresting  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  endeavoring  to  find  support  in  them  for  tlieir 
fictions."  t  He  gives  connectedly  many  passages  from  the 
Gospels,  which  they  applied  to  the  proof  of  their  doctrines, 
and  afterwards  confutes  tlieir  interpretations,  t  He  speak.s 
of  them  as  making  use  of  every  part  of  the  Gos})el  of  John.  § 
I  have  already  quoted  a  passage,  in  which  he  says,  that  those 
heretics,  in  putting  together  detached  passages  of  Scripture, 
resemble  one  who  should  separate  the  stones  of  a  mosaic 
representing  a  king,  and  employ  them  to  make  the  figure  of  a 
fox  or  a  dog ;  ||  and  another,  in  which  he  compares  their  abun- 
dant use  of  Scripture  language  to  the  labor  of  one  stringing 
together  verses  of  Homer  to  form  a  cento.lf  "  There  is  such 
assurance,"  he  says,  "  concerning  the  Gospels,  that  the  her- 
etics themselves  bear  testimony  to  them,  and  every  one  of 
them  endeavors  to  prove  his  doctrine  from  them.  .  .  .  As, 
then,  those  who  opi)Ose  us  bear  testimony  in  our  favor,  and 
use  these  Gospels,  it  follows  that  what  we  have  shown  that 
the  Gospels  teach  is  established  and  true."  ** 

"  There  could   not  be  heresies,"  says  Tertullian,  "  if  the 


*  Lib.  i.  Pnx'fat.,  §  1,  p.  2.  t  I>ib.  i.  c.  9,  §  1,  p.  43. 

X  Lib.  i.  cc.  8,  9,  pp.  35-47.  §  Lib.  iii.  c  11,  §  7,  p.  190. 

II  Lib.  i.  c.  8,  §  1,  p.  36. 

^  Lib.  i.  c.  9,  §  4,  pp.  45,  4G.     Tertullian  uses  the  same  comparison,  D« 
Prsescript.  Haeretic,  c  39,  p.  216. 
**  Lib.  iii.  c.  11   §  7,  pp.  189,  190. 


396  EVIDENCES   OP   THE 

Scriptures  were  incapable  of  being  misinterpreted."* — "They 
could  not  venture  to  show  themselves  without  some  pre- 
tence from  the  Scriptures."  t  —  "  The  heretics  plead  their 
cause  from  the  Scriptures,  and  draw  their  arguments  from 
the  Scriptures.  Whence,  indeed,  could  they  draw  their  argu- 
ments concerning  the  subjects  of  faith,  except  from  the  books 
of  the  faith  ?  "  $ 

It  appears,  then,  that  the  theosophic  Gnostics  abundantly 
appealed  to  the  Scriptures,  and  particularly  to  the  Gospels,  in 
support  of  their  opinions.  The  passages  I  have  quoted,  and 
others  of  a  similar  character,  are  not  to  be  considered  as  mere 
common  testimony  to  this  fact.  They  are  the  admissions  of 
their  opponents.  So  far  as  there  was  any  ground  for  it,  the 
catholic  Christiana  were  eager  to  charge  the  Gnostics  with  mu- 
tilating, rejecting,  and  undervaluing  the  writings  of  the  New 
Testament.  In  the  case  of  the  Marcionites,  this  accusation 
was  strongly  urged.  But,  as  respects  the  theosophic  Gnos- 
tics, we  have  the  testimony  of  the  earliest  and  most  elaborate 
writers  against  them,  of  Irenceus  and  Tertullian,  that  they 
made  use  of  the  Gospels,  and  other  writings  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  constantly  appealed  to  them  for  proof  of 
their  doctrines,  as  freely  as  the  catholic  Christians. 

The  Marcionites  made  similar  use  of  those  portions  of  the 
New  Testament  the  authority  of  which  they  admitted.  This 
is  abundantly  apparent  from  Tertullian's  whole  controversy 
with  them  ;  and  might  be  inferred  simply  from  the  fact,  that 
they  did  acknowledge  the  authority  of  those  portions  which 
they  retained. 

But  the  evidence  which  has  been  brought  forward  of  the 
facts  just  stated,  however  conclusive,  is  not  perhaps  the  most 
striking  that  may  be  adduced.     There  is  a  remarkable  work 


*  De  Resurrectione  Carnis,  c.  40,  p.  349.  f  Ibid.;  c.  63,  p.  365. 

X  De  Praescript.  Haeret.,  c.  14,  p.  207. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  397 

of  Tertullian,  entitled  "De  Pricscriptione  Ilrcreticorum." 
The  word  j^rcescriptio,  used  in  this  title,  was  a  forensic  term, 
denoting  an  exception  taken  by  a  defendant  to  the  i)laintifrs 
riglit  to  maintain  an  action.  The  title  of  Tertulliau's  worlc 
might  be  rendered,  "On  the  Plea  in  Bar  against  the  Here- 
tics." Its  purpose  is  to  show  that  the  heretics  should  not  bo 
allowed  to  argue  their  cause  from  the  Scriptures.  The  posi- 
tion which  he  maintains  is,  that  the  history  of  the  catholic 
doctrine,  and  of  the  doctrines  of  the  heretics,  alone  determines 
the  former  to  be  true,  and  the  latter  false,  without  further 
inquiry.     His  argument  proceeds  as  follows  :  — 

Christ,  whoever  he  was,  of  whatever  God  he  was  the  son, 
whatever  was  the  substance  of  his  divine  and  of  his  human 
nature,  whatever  faith  he  taught,  whatever  rewards  he  prom- 
ied,  declared,  while  on  earth,  what  he  was,  what  he  had  been, 
the  will  of  his  Father,  and  the  duty  of  man,  either  publicly  to 
the  people,  or  apart  to  his  disciples.  He  sent  forth  his 
apostles,  who  had  been  chosen  by  him  for  this  purpose,  to 
preach  to  the  world  the  same  doctrine  which  he  had  taught. 
They  founded  churches  in  every  city  where  they  went, 
from  which  other  churches  had  been  and  were  still  derived. 
These  all  traced  back  their  origin  to  the  apostles,  and 
formed  one  great  apostolic  Church,  held  together  in  brother- 
hood by  the  reception  of  the  same  religion  handed  down 
to  all. 

But,  if  Christ  gave  authority  to  his  apostles  to  preach  his 
religion,  no  other  expositors  of  it  are  to  be  listened  to.  What 
they  preached  is  what  he  revealed;  and,  in  order  to  ascertain 
what  they  preached,  we  must  recur  to  the  churches  which 
they  founded,  and  instructed  orally  and  by  their  epistles 
Whatever  doctrine  is  held  by  those  churches  is  true,  as 
derived  from  the  apostles,  and  tiu'ough  them  from  Christ,  and 
through  Christ  from  God.  Every  other  doctrine  is  false. 
But  we,  says  Tertullian,  hold  communion  witii  the  apos- 
tolic churches;  there  is  no  diflference  of  beUef  between  us 


398  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

and  tliem ;   and  this  is  the  proof  of  the  truth  of  our  doc- 
triues."* 

The  argument  stated  in  its  most  concise  form,  it  will  be 
perceived,  is  this,  —  that  it  was  matter  of  history  that  the 
catholic  churches  had,  from  the  days  of  the  apostles,  held  the 
same  doctrines  as  they  did  in  the  time  of  Tertullian ;  and 
that  these  doctrines,  therefore,  were  the  original  doctrines  of 
the  religion  derived  through  the  apostles  from  Christ.  It 
was  equally  a  matter  of  history,  he  continues,  that  the 
founders  of  the  principal  heretical  sects,  Valentinus  and  Mar- 
cion,  for  instance,  had  lived  after  the  times  of  the  apostles, 
and  had  introduced  new  doctrines  not  before  held  by  the 
churches.  If  their  doctrines  were  true,  the  churches  had 
before  been  in  error  from  the  beginning.  "  Thousands  of 
thousands  had  been  baptized  into  a  false  religion."  — "  Let 
them  show  me,"  says  Tertullian,  "  by  what'  authority  they 
have  come  forward.  .  .  .  Let  them  prove  themselves  to  be 
new  apostles  ;  let  them  affirm  that  Christ  has  again  descended, 
has  again  taught,  has  again  been  crucified,  has  again  died, 
and  has  risen  again.  It  was  thus  that  he  foTmed  his  apos- 
tles ;  giving  them,  moreover,  the  power  of  working  the  same 
miracles  which  he  did.  I  wish  them  to  produce  their  mira 
cles."  t 

The  main  scope  of  the  reasoning  of  Tertullian  is  apparent. 
It  is,  he  maintains,  a  well-known  historical  fact,  that  the 
catholic  doctrine,  as  opposed  to  that  of  the  Gnostics,  has  been 
held  from  the  beginning  by  the  churches  which  the  apostles 
founded,  and  by  all  other  churches  in  communion  with  them. 
This  fact  precludes  the  necessity  of  any  further  argument 
with  those  heretics.  They  have  no  claim  to  be  heard  in 
appealing  to  the  Scriptures  in  support  of  their  opinions. 

Tertullian  remarks  at  length  upon  the  various  objections 
which  were  made  to  his  argument  by  different  individuals,  or 

•  Cc.  20,  21,  pp.  208,  209.  f  Cc.  29,  30,  pp.  212,  213. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        399 

by  the  same  at  different  times.  All  of  them,  it  may  be 
observed,  are  founded  on  passages  of  the  New  Testament. 
With  the  exception  of  the  last  to  be  here  mentioned,  they 
have  already  been  spoken  of  The  Gnostics  sometimes  "said, 
that  the  apostles  did  not  know  all  things  ;  *  sometimes,  that 
the  apostles  had  a  public  and  a  private  doctrine,  and  did  not 
communicate  all  truths  openly  to  all ;  f  and,  finally,  they  con- 
tended, that  the  catholic  churches,  from  the  earliest  times,  had 
fallen  into  error  through  not  understanding  what  the  apostles 
taught. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  dwell  on  the  answers  of  Tertullian  to 
these  objections.  His  main  argument,  considering  the  early 
period  when  it  was  adduced,  and  its  application  as  against  the 
doctrines  of  the  Gnostics,  is  evidently  conclusive.  I  have 
given  this  brief  account  of  it  for  the  purpose  of  introducing 
the  reason  which  he  assigns  for  urging  it.  This  reason  is, 
that  in  the  controversy  between  the  catholic  Christians  and 
the  Gnostics,  when  the  Gnostics  were  allowed  to  appeal  to 
the  Scriptures  in  proof  of  their  doctrines,  they  argued  so 
plausibly  as  to  leave  the  victory  uncertain ;  to  make  converts 
of  some,  and  to  instil  doubts  into  others. 

"  We  come,  then,"  he  says,  "to  the  subject  proposed,"  —  '*  Our 
opponents  put  forward  the  Scriptures,  and  their  boldness  has  an 
immediate  eifec-t  upon  some.  In  the  first  encounter,  they  fatigue 
the  strong,  they  take  captive  the  weak,  and  dismiss  others  with 
doubts.  Here,  then,  I  meet  them  at  the  onset:  they  are  not  to  be 
admitted  to  argue  from  the  Scriptures."  J 

"  AVill  he  for  the  sake  of  whose  doubts  you  engage  in  an  argu- 
ment from  the  Scriptures,  be  inclined  in  consequence  more  to  the 
truth  or  to  heresy  ?  When  he  sees  that  you  make  no  advance ; 
that,  the  other  party  maintaining  his  ground,  you  both  equally 
deny  and  defend,  —  he  will  surely  go  away  from  this  conilict  more 


*  See  before,  pp.  332,  333.  f  See  before,  pp.  327-332. 

X  Cap.  15,  p.  207. 


400  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

uncertain  than  before,   and  ignorant  on  wliicli  side  the  Leresj 
lies."  * 

"The  appeal,  therefore,  is  not  to  be  made  to  the  Scriptures, 
nor  is  the  decision  of  the  controversy  to  be  rested  on  them ;  for 
thev  will  afford  no  victory,  or  an  uncertain  one,  or  one  no  better 
than  uncertain.  Even  though  the  mutual  appeal  to  Scripture 
should  not  leave  each  party  on  an  equality,!  yet  the  order  of 
things  demands  that  that  consideration  should  be  first  brought 
forward  which  is  the  sole  subject  of  the  present  argument,  —  To 
whom  does  the  faith  [the  religion]  itself  belong  ?  AVhose  are  the 
Scriptures?  From  whom,  and  through  whom,  and  when,  and  to 
whom,  was  the  instruction  delivered,  by  which  men  are  made 
Christians  ?  For,  wherever  it  may  appear  that  the  true  Christian 
instruction  and  faith  are  to  be  found,  there  will  be  the  true  Scrip- 
tures, and  their  true  exposition,  and  all  true  Christian  traditions."  :{: 

Thus  it  appears,  that,  whatever  difficulties  the  theosophic 
Gnostics  found  in  reconciling  their  doctrines  with  the  New 
Testament,  they  recognized  the  necessity  of  doing  so ;  that 
they  were  ready  to  meet  their  opponents  on  this  ground ; 
that  they  furnished  plausible  explanations  of  those  difficulties, 
and  drew  from  the  New  Testament  plausible  arguments  in 
their  own  favor.  But  this  is  but  a  partial  statement.  The 
theosophic  Gnostics  appealed  to  the  Gospels  as  freely  and  as 
confidently  as  did  the  catholic  Christians ;  contending  that 
they  alone  had  the  true  key  to  their  meaning,  and  that  other 
Christians,  not  being  spiritual,  could  not  comprehend  their 
hidden  and  higher  senses.  They  believed,  indeed,  that  the 
apostles  and  evangelists  were  not  infallible  ;  that  they  were 
liable  to  human  errors,  and  that  they  were  affected  by  preju- 
dices and  fals-e  opinions,  common  to  their  countrymen,  which 
had  been  implanted  in  their  minds  in  childhood,  had  grown 
witn  their  growth,  and  had  not  been  wholly  eradicated.     But 


*  Cap.  IS,  p.  208. 

t  I  adopt  the  reading,  "  ut  utramque  parte?n  parem  sisteret. 

X  Cap.  I'J,  p.  208. 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        401 

the  theosopliic  Gnostics,  who  allegorized  and  spiritualized  the 
words  of  the  Gospels,  had  not  the  same  occasion  to  niisapply 
this  principle  as  the  Marcionites,  who  were  not  allegorists. 
The  Marcionites  regarded  the  Gospels  as  colored  throughout 
by  the  Jewish  prejudices  of  their  writers.  But,  by  taking 
the  work  of  him  whom  they  considered  as  the  most  en- 
lightened of  the  evangelists,  St.  Luke,  and  rejecting  from 
it  some  errors,  they  thought  themselves  able  to  obtain  a 
history  altogether  correct ;  and  this  was  the  basis  of  theii 
system. 

Still,  had  any  seemingly  credible  history  of  Christ's  minis- 
try existed,  more  favorable  to  the  opinions  of  the  Gnostics 
than  the  four  Gospels,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  they  would 
have  used  that  history  in  preference.  The  manner,  therefore, 
in  which  they  appealed  to  the  four  Gospels,  or  to  the  history 
of  Christ  as  contained  in  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  without  bring- 
ing any  Gnostic  history  into  competition  with  them,  is  proof 
that  no  such  history  existed.  All  Christians,  the  catholicSj 
the  theosophic  Gnostics,  the  Marcionites,  and,  as  we  have 
before  seen,  the  Hebrew  Christians,  were  equally  ignorant 
of  any  history  of  Christ's  ministry  different  from  that  given 
by  the  evangelists.  No  party  relied  on  any  other :  no  party 
had  any  other  to  produce. 

But  it  has  been  suggested,  or  implied,  that  the  early 
founders  of  the  Gnostic  sects  drew  their  systems  from  their 
philosophy,  and  connected  them  only  with  some  general  be- 
lief that  the  coming  of  Christ  was  a  manifestation  of  the 
Supreme  God  for  the  purpose  of  delivering  men  from  moral 
evil  and  its  consequences ;  and  that  it  was  merely  by  way  of 
reasonino-  ad  hominem  with  the  catholic  Christians,  that  the 
Gnostics  made  use  of  the  Gospels.*    Let  us  try  the  probabil- 


*  See,  for  example,  Watch's  Historic  der  Ketzercien,  i.  374;   Matter, 
Histoire  du  Gnosticisme,  ii.  172,  190. 
26 


402  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

ity  of  this  supposition  by  applying  it  to  a  particular  case,  — 
that  of  the  Valeutinians. 

AVe  have  seen,  that  the  Valentinians  so  fully,  and  in  such 
various  ways,  professed  their  belief  in  the  truth  of  the  Gos- 
pels, that  their  opponents  did  not  accuse  them  of  denying  it ; 
though  this  charge  would  unquestionably  have  been  brought 
against  them,  had  there  been  a  foundation  for  it.  But  they 
made  use  of  the  Gospels,  it  may  be  said,  not  in  good  faith  ; 
they  quoted  them  only  "  to  satisfy  those  who  demanded 
proofs  from  Scripture,"  *  or  undertook  to  explain  them  by 
way  of  answering  the  objections  of  those  who  regarded  the 
Gospels  as  of  authority.  The  statements  already  made  show 
that  these  suppositions  have  no  probability  to  'recommend 
them ;  but  let  us  examine  a  little  farther.  According  to  this 
hypothesis,  the  Valentinians  did  not  believe  the  authenticity 
and  genuineness  of  the  Gospels ;  they  did  not  sincerely  rec- 
ognize their  authority ;  they  did  not  believe  them  to  favor 
their  own  opinions ;  and,  consequently,  they  did  not  believe 
them  to  teach  what  they  thought  true  Christianity.  At  the 
same  time,  it  is  evident  that  these  books  "were  principally 
relied  on  by  their  opponents  as  a  storehouse  of  arguments 
against  them.  We  have,  indeed,  no  reason  to  doubt  that 
there  was  a  foundation  for  the  strong  language  which  has 
been  quoted  from  Tertullian,  respecting  their  skilful  and  suc- 
cessful use  of  the  Scriptures.  We  may  believe  that  the 
Gnostics  sometimes  made  converts  from  among  the  catholic 
Christians,  and  showed  much  talent,  after  the  fashion  of  their 
times,  in  reconciling  their  doctrines  with  the  New  Testament, 
and  in  persuading  themselves  and  others  that  they  were  indi- 
cated in  the  parables  or  supported  by  the  declarations  of 
Christ,  as  recorded  in  the  Gospels.  But,  after  all,  it  is  evi- 
dent that  the  Gospels  do  not  teach  the  Gnostic  doctrines,  but 
do  teach  what  is  irreconcilable  with  those  doctrines.     It  is 

*  Walch,  vbi  supra. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  403 

equally  certain,  that  this  fact  was  recognized  by  a  great 
majority  of  early  believers  (for  the  catholic  Christians  far 
outnumbered  the  Gnostics),  and  even  by  a  very  large  and 
respectable  portion  of  the  Gnostics  themselves,  the  Marcion- 
ites,  as  appears  from  the  expedient  to  which  tliey  had 
recourse,  of  rejecting  the  use  of  three  of  the  Gospels,  and 
mutilating  that  which  they  retained.  Would  the  Valentin- 
ians,  then,  have  professed  to  regard  those  books  as  authentic, 
had  there  been  good  reasons  for  questioning  their  authen- 
ticity ?  Is  it  credible,  that  they  would,  with  such  a  consistent 
show  of  conviction  as  to  deceive  and  silence  their  opponents, 
have  professed  their  belief  in  the  truth  of  the  Gospels,  had 
they  not  believed  them  true?  So  far  from  it,  they  would 
at  once  have  seized  on  the  triumph,  or  at  least  the  advantage, 
which  was  evidently  in  their  power,  could  the  genuineness 
and  authority  of  the  books  relied  on  by  their  opponents  have 
been  fairly  denied  or  fairly  questioned.  The  course  to  be 
pursued  would  have  been  clear;  and  neither  an  honest  man, 
nor  a  controvertist  of  common  ability,  could  have  neglected  to 
take  it.  The  Valentinians,  and  the  other  theosophic  Gnos- 
tics, would  not  have  persisted  in  dishonestly  affirming  or 
implying  their  belief  of  the  authenticity  of  books  which  they 
did  not  believe  to  be  authentic,  and  which  furnished  their 
opponents  with  arguments  against  their  doctrines,  conclusive 
in  themselves,  and  by  most  regarded  as  conclusive. 

Let  us  view  the  subject  under  another  aspect.  The  Gos- 
pels were  either  known  to  Valentinus  himself,  or  they  were 
•not.  If  they  were  known  to  him,  they  were  either  regarded 
by  him  as  genuine  and  authentic,  or  they  were  not.  lie 
lived  at  so  early  an  age,  in  the  first  half  of  the  second  century, 
that  no  question  could  have  existed  in  his  time,  whether  they 
were  entitled  to  that  character.  The  fact  must  have  been 
known,  either  that  they  were,  or  that  they  were  not,  entitled 
to  it.  If  he  regarded  them  as  genuine  and  authentic,  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  they  were  so  regarded  by  his  followers, 


404  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

and  by  tlie  great  body  of  contemporary  Christians ;  and  our 
inquiry  is  at  an  end.  Let  us  suppose,  then,  either  that 
they  were  not  known  to  him,  that  they  were  not  in  existence, 
or  that,  being  known  to  him,  they  were  rejected  by  him  as 
unworthy  of  credit.  In  either  case,  he  built  his  system  on 
other  foundations,  and  supported  it  by  other  arguments,  than 
what  those  books  might  afford.  In  either  case,  it  is  evident 
that  his  followers  would  never  have  admitted  or  implied  the 
truth  of  the  Gospels.  They  would  never  have  consented  to 
receive,  as  genuine  and  authentic,  books  not  known  to  their 
master,  or  which  he  had  rejected,  —  books  which  they  them- 
selves must  have  believed  to  be  the  fabrications  of  opponents 
who  had  excluded  him  and  them  from  their  com'munity,  and 
which  furnished  those  opponents  with  the  strongest  arguments 
against  what  they  regarded  as  true  Christianity.  They 
would  not  have  exposed  themselves  to  such  expostulations  as 
those  of  Tertullian :  "  If  they  are  heretics,  they  are  not 
Christians,  not  deriving  their  doctrine  from  Christ.  .  .  .  Not 
being  Christians,  they  have  no  property  in  the  books  of 
Christians.  It  may  justly  be  said  to  ^hem,  "Who  are  you? 
When  and  whence  did  you  come  ?  What  are  you,  who  do 
not  belong  to  me,  doing  on  my  premises  ?  By  what  right, 
Marcion,  do  you  cut  down  my  woods  ?  By  what  license, 
Valentinus,  do  you  divert  the  water  of  my  springs?  By 
what  author ily,  Apelles,  are  you  removing  my  landmarks  ? 
How  is  it,  that  you  others  are  sowing  and  pasturing  here 
at  your  pleasure  ?  It  is  my  possession  ;  I  have  possessed  it  of 
old;  I  trace  back  my  title  to  its  original  source;  I  am  heir 
of  the  apostles."  *  To  such  language  it  would  have  required 
Et'ither  an  acute  nor  an  angry  controvertist  to  give  the  an- 
swer, that  this  disputed  possession  was  not  worth  claiming, 
could  such  an  answer  have  been  given  with  truth. 


*  De  Pra;script.  Haeretic,  c.  37,  p.  215. 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  405 

In  examining  (in  the  Second  Part  of  this  work)  the  direct 
historical  evidence  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  we 
have  seen,  that  it  does  not  mainly  consist,  as  in  the  case  of 
other  books,  of  assertions  and  implications  of  individual 
writers  concerning  their  authorship.  It  rests  on  the  fact,  that 
they  were  universally  received,  as  the  works  of  those  to 
whom  they  are  ascribed,  by  the  great  body  of  catholic  Cliris- 
tians,  at  so  early  a  period  that  no  mistake  on  the  subject 
could  have  been  committed ;  and  on  another  consideration  of 
equal  weight,  that  this  general  reception  of  the  Gospels  as 
genuine,  wherever  Christianity  had  been  preached,  is  a  phe- 
nomenon which  can  be  accounted  for  only  on  the  supposition 
of  their  genuineness. 

But,  in  turning  from  the  catholic  Christians  to  the  Gnos- 
tics, it  might  not  be  unreasonable  to  apprehend,  considering 
the  opposition  in  which  the  two  parties  stood  to  each  other, 
that  something  would  appear  to  cloud  the  testimony  of  the 
former,  and  perhaps  to  shake  our  confidence  in  it  as  conclu- 
sive. Certainly,  had  there  been,  during  the  first  ages  of 
Christianity,  any  doubt  concerning  the  genuineness  of  the 
Gospels,  we  should  have  learned  it  from  the  Gnostics.  But, 
so  fiir  from  any  doubt  being  suggested  by  the  examination 
which  we  have  gone  through,  we  find  the  Gnostics  strongly 
confirming  the  testimony  of  their  catholic  opponents.  Valen- 
tinus  and  Basilides  carry  us  back  to  the  earlier  part  of  the 
second  century ;  *  and  they,  in  common  with  the  catholic 
Christians,  received  the  Gospels  as  the  authentic  histories  ot 
the  ministry  of  Christ.  About  the  same  period,  Marcion 
affords  his  evidence  to  the  general  reception  of  one  of  the 
Gospels,  and  consequently,  as  we  have  seen,  proof  of  the  re- 
ception of  the  other  three.t  On  the  Gospels,  or,  to  include 
the  case  of  the  Marcionites  and  the  Hebrew  Christians,  on  a 
history  of  Christ,  such  as  is  found   in   one  of  the   Gcspels, 

*  See  pp.  204,  205.  f  See  before,  p.  393. 


406  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

every  form  of  Christian  faith  rested  as  its  foundation.  No 
history  presenting  a  different  view  of  his  ministry  was  in 
existence. 

Here,  then,  we  conclude  our  statement  of  the  historical 
evidence,  both  direct  and  subsidiary,  of  the  Genuineness  of 
the  Gospels.  The  catholic  Christians  bear  testimony  to  their 
having  been  written  by  the  particular  individuals  to  whom 
they  are  ascribed.  The  Gnostics  confirm  this  testimony  by 
the  proofs  which  they  afford  of  their  general  reception  and 
authority. 

We  have  pursued  this  investigation  carefully  and  at  length, 
as  if  there  was  some  intrinsic  improbability  in  the  proposition, 
that  the  Gospels  were  written  by  the  authors  to  whom  they 
are  ascribed ;  some  presumption  against  it,  such  as  to  re- 
quire a  patient  removal  of  difficulties,  and  an  accumulation  of 
strong  evidence,  to  establish  its  truth.  But,  on  the  contrary, 
it  is  apparent  that  the  Gospels  were  written  by  early  be- 
lievers in  our  Lord  ;  there  is  not  a  showof  evidence  that 
they  were  written  by  any  other  believers  than  those  to  whom 
they  have  been  ascribed;  and  nothing  is  more  probable,  than 
that  some  of  his  immediate  disciples,  or  of  their  intimate  com- 
panions, should  have  left  us  such  narratives  of  his  life. 

The  Founder  of  our  religion,  whether  one  believe  or  not 
that  he  was  authorized  by  God  to  speak  in  his  name,  was 
unquestionably  the  most  wonderful  individual  who  ever  ap- 
peared on  earth.  A  Jew,  a  Galilcean,  in  humble  life,  poor, 
without  literary  culture,  without  worldly  power  or  influence ; 
teaching  but  for  a  short  time  (probably  not  more  than  two 
years)  ;  wandering  about  the  shores  of  the  Lake  of  Galilee  and 
of  the  Jordan  ;  scarcely  entering  Jerusalem  but  to  be  driven 
away  by  persecution,  till  at  last  he  went  thither  to  perish 
under  it ;  collecting  during  his  lifetime  only  a  small  body  of 
illiterate    and    often    wavering    followers;    addressing    men 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  407 

whose  incapacity,  prejudices,  or  hatred  continually  led  them 
to  mistake  or  to  pervert  his  meaning ;  surrounded,  and 
apparently  overpowered,  by  his  unbeheving  countrymen,  who 
regarded  him  as  a  blasphemer,  and  caused  him  to  suffer  the 
death  of  the  most  unpitied  of  malefiictors,  —  this  person  has 
wrought  an  effect,  to  which  there  is  nothing  parallel,  on  the 
opinions  and  on  the  condition  of  the  most  enlightened  portion 
of  our  race.  The  moral  civilization  of  the  world,  the  noblest 
conceptions  which  men  have  entertained  of  religion,  of  their 
nature,  and  of  their  duties,  are  to  be  traced  back  directly  to 
him.  They  come  to  us,  not  from  the  groves  of  the  Academy, 
not  from  the  walks  by  the  Ilissus  which  Aristotle  frequented, 
nor  from  the  Painted  Portico  of  Athens  where  Zeno  taught : 
but  from  the  mountain  on  which  Jesus  delivered  his  first 
recorded  discourse;  from  the  synagogue  and  the  streets  of 
the  small  town  of  Capernaum,  of  which  not  a  ruin  remains  to 
fix  its  site  ;  from  fishing-boats  on  the  Lake  of  Galilee  ;  from 
the  less  inhabited  tracts  —  the  deserts,  as  they  have  been 
called  —  of  Palestine  ;  from  the  courts  of  the  Jewish  temple, 
where  he  who  spoke  was  confronting  men  plotting  his  de- 
struction ;  from  the  cross  of  one  expiring  in  agony  amid  the 
savage  triumph  of  his  enemies.  After  witnessing  such  a 
death,  his  disciples  lost  all  their  doubts.  They  affirmed  their 
Master  to  be  the  Saviour  of  the  world,  the  Son  of  God. 
They  '  devoted  themselves  to  labor  and  suffer,  and,  if  need 
were,  to  die,  in  making  him  known  to  men.  What  they 
strove  to  impress  upon  the  minds  of  others  was  what,  as  they 
asserted,  he  had  done  and  taught.  They  "  knew  nothing  but 
Jesus  Christ  and  him  crucified."  It  was  the  history,  real  or 
pretended,  of  his  ministry  on  earth,  which  was  the  basis  of  all 
their  teaching;  the  essential  instruction  to  be  first  commu- 
nicated to  all  who  were  summoned  to  put  their  trust  in  him, 
to  take  up  their  cross,  and  follow  him  in  the  new  path 
whicli  he  had  opened  from  earth  to  heaven.  Now,  there  can 
be  no  supposition  more  irrational,  than  that  the  history  of 


408  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

Christ,  which  was  thus  promulgated  by  all  his  first  disciples, 
and  received  by  all  their  first  converts,  was  lost  before  the 
beginning  of  the  second  century,  and  another  history  substi- 
tuted in  its  place.  But,  if  the  Gospels  contain  the  history  of 
Christ  as  it  was  promulgated  by  his  apostles,  there  can  be  no 
ground  for  doubting  that  they  were  written  by  the  authors  to 
whom  they  are  ascribed,  —  by  apostles,  and  companions  of 
apostles. 

To  all  the  weight  of  evidence  that  the  Gospels  were  written 
by  the  authors  to  whom  they  have  been  ascribed,  what  other 
account  of  their  origin  has  been  or  may  be  opposed  ?  The 
genuineness  of  the  Gospel  of  John  has  been  .directly  im- 
pugned by  some  modern  German  tlieologians.  Their  hypoth- 
eses are,  necessarily,  only  developments  of  one  essential 
proposition,  that  this  Gospel  is  a  spurious  work,  fraudulently 
ascribed  to  the  apostle  by  its  original  writer,  or  by  some 
other  individual  or  individuals.  There  can  be  no  direct  evi- 
dence of  the  truth  of  this  supposition ;  and  with  it  another 
must  be  connected,  namely,  that  this  imagined  fraud  was  so 
successful  as  to  impose  on  all  Christians,  catholic  and  hereti- 
cal, from  the  beginning  of  the  second  century.  But,  if  this 
be  a  moral  impossibility,  then  there  is  a  moral  certainty  that 
the  Gospel  ascribed  to  John  was  the  work  of  that  apostle. 
Yet  this  brief  statement,  decisive  as  it  may  be,  gives  but  a 
very  imperfect  view  of  those  facts  and  considerations,  hereto- 
fore presented,  which  show  that  any  other  supposition  is  alto- 
gether incredible. 

In  respect  to  the  other  three  Gospels,  the  attacks  on  their 
genuineness  and  authenticity  by  many  of  the  modern  German 
tlieologians  have  been  more  elaborate.  But,  if  their  genuine- 
ness be  denied,  there  are  only  two  fundamental  suppositions,, 
one  or  the  other  of  wliich  must  be  made.  One  is  of  the  same 
nature  with  that  which  has  been  advanced  concerning  St. 
John's  Gospel.     It  may  be  asserted  that  each  of  them  is  a 


GENUINENESS   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  409 

Bpurious  work  of  some  one  unknown  author.  But  this  suppo- 
sition has  been  generally  felt  to  be  too  indefensible.  Recourse 
has  therefore  been  had  to  different  hypotheses,  which  may  all 
be  resolved  into  one  fundamental  supposition,  —  that  the  first 
three  Gospels  are,  respectively,  aggregates  of  stories  by  differ- 
ent hands,  brought  together  by  different  compilers.  In  the 
First  Part  of  this  work,  we  have  examined  this  supposition 
under  as  plausible  a  form  as  any  in  which  it  has  appeared ; 
and,  if  the  view  there  taken  of  the  subject  be  correct,  there  is 
something  like  mathematical  demonstration  of  its  falsity. 
But  so  far  as  those  hypotheses  are  connected,  as  they  have 
been,  with  the  supposition  that  the  narratives  contained  in 
the  first  three  Gospels  are  distorted  and  discolored  by  tradi- 
tion, there  is  a  moral  demonstration  of  their  falsity.  The 
character  of  Jesus  Christ  as  exhibited  in  any  one  of  the  first 
three  Gospels,  or  in  all  of  them  taken  together,  is  equally 
consistent  and  wonderful.  It  is,  at  the  same  time,  a  charac- 
ter to  which  nothing  in  human  history,  before  or  after,  pre- 
sents a  parallel  or  a  resemblance.  He  appears  as  one  acting 
under  the  miraculous  conviction,  that  he  was  the  instrument 
of  God,  to  assure  men,  on  His  authority,  of  their  relations  to 
Him  and  to  eternity ;  and  this  conception  of  his  character  is 
fully  sustained.  In  the  midst  of  men  who  appear,  as  we 
should  expect  the  Jews  of  that  age  to  appear,  ignorant,  nar- 
row-minded, dull  in  their  perceptions,  indocile,  many  of  them 
hating  him  with  all  the  hatred  of  bigotry ;  throughout  trials 
of  every  sort ;  under  external  circumstances  so  humiliating 
that  we  shrink  from  the  thought  of  them,  —  he  shows  always 
the  same  unalterable  elevation  of  character,  requiring  no 
human  support.  We  feel  that  he  was  not  to  be  degraded  by 
any  insult ;  and  that  no  praise  could  have  been  addressed  to 
him,  had  it  come  from  the  highest  of  men,  which  would  not 
have  been  a  strange  impertinence.  If  our  natural  feelings 
have  been  unperverted,  we  follow  him,  if  not  with  the  convic- 
tion,—  that   convictioD   has    been   resisted,  —  but   certiiinly 


410  EVIDENCES   OF  THE 

with  a  sentiment,  continually  prompting  us  to  say.,  "  rruly 
this  was  the  Son  of  God."  But  it  is  folly  to  suppose,  that 
such  a  portraiture  of  character  could  have  been  the  result  of 
an  aggregation  of  fabulous  traditionary  stories  which  had 
been  moulded  by  different  minds,  Jewish  or  Gentile.  The 
comparison  is  unworthy  of  the  subject ;  but  it  would  not  be 
more  absurd  to  imagine,  that  the  finest  works  of  ancient 
plastic  art,  the  display  of  perfect  physical  beauty  in  the 
Apollo  Belvidere,  had  been  produced  by  putting  together 
the  labors  of  different  artists  at  different  times,  all  work- 
ing without  a  model,  —  this  making  one  part  or  member,  and 
that  another. 

We  may  enter  on  the  inquiry  respecting  the  genuineness 
of  the  Gospels  merely  as  scholars  and  critics,  without  any 
previous  opinion  respecting  their  contents.  To  a  thinking 
man,  whatever  may  be  his  opinion,  it  must  appear  an  object 
of  great  curiosity  to  determine  the  authorship  of  books  so 
extraordinary,  and  which  have  had  such  vast  influence.  In 
treating  the  historical  evidence  for  their  genuineness,  we  deal 
with  historical  facts,  and  our  reasoning  is  of  a  kind  with 
which  we  are  familiar,  and  which  is  fully  within  the  cogni- 
zance of  our  judgment.  But  if,  from  the  preceding  examina- 
tion of  this  evidence,  it  appears  that  the  Gospels  are  the 
works  of  those  to  whom  they  have  been  ascribed,  then  the 
argument  we  have  pursued,  and  which  we  ought  to  pursue, 
merely  as  scholars  and  eritics,  or,  I  may  better  say,  as  intelli- 
gent men,  capable  of  understanding  the  force  of  reasoning, 
leads  to  results  of  the  deepest  moment.  Upon  arriving  at 
the  end  of  our  journey,  on  quitting  the  detail  of  history  and 
criticism,  through  which  it  has  lain,  considerations  of  another 
class  present  themselves  to  view :  we  see  rising  before  us 
objects  the  most  solemn  and  sublime ;  we  have  been  brought 
to  the  contemplation  of  all  that  is  of  permanent  and  essential 
interest  to  man.    Let  us  examine  the  reasoning  thoroughly  as 


GENUINENESS  OF  THE  GOSPELS.        411 

logicians ;  but,  if  it  will  bear  this  examination,  then  the  con* 
elusion  to  which  it  leads  is  to  be  regarded  with  very  different 
feelings  from  what  may  have  been  called  forth  during  its 
process.  If  the  Gospels  were  written  by  the  authors  to  whom 
they  are  ascribed,  two  of  them  by  individuals  who  were  inti- 
mate companions  of  Jesus,  eye-witnesses  of  his  ministry,  who 
knew  the  facts,  whatever  they  were,  of  his  public  life,  and 
the  other  two  by  those  who  received  their  accounts  immedi- 
ately from  such  eye-witnesses,  then  the  narrative  of  his  miu' 
istry  contained  in  the  Gospels  is  true.  The  apostles  could 
not  have  been  deceived  respecting  the  facts  which  they  prO' 
fess  to  relate.  If  Jesus  Christ  did  not,  by  a  series  of  miracles 
performed  before  crowds  of  spectators,  by  his  doctrines,  and 
by  an  exhibition  of  character  altogether  conformed  to  his 
claims,  give  full  evidence  of  his  being  authorized  to  speak  in 
the  name  of  God,  then  the  Gospels  are  not  a  collection  of 
legends,  the  growth  of  tradition  in  an  ignorant  and  marvel- 
loving  age,  —  that  supposition  is  excluded  by  the  proof  of 
their  genuineness :  they  are  throughout  a  tissue  of  mon- 
strous and  inexplicable  falsehoods.  If  the  Gospels  be  gen- 
uine, there  but  two  conclusions  which  are  possible.  The 
narrative  of  the  public  life  of  Jesus  contained  in  them  is 
either  essentially  fixlse,  or  it  is  essentially  true;  and,  if 
false,  it  is  so  thoroughly  false,  that  we  know  nothing 
concerning  his  character  and  actions.  His  immediate  fol- 
lowers have  buried  his  history  under  a  mass  of  prodigious 
fictions ;  and  these  fictions  they  propagated,  in  the  face  of  his 
enemies  and  their  own,  among  those  whom  they  affirmed  to 
have  witnessed  the  pretended  events  which  they  related. 
The  true  history  of  Jesus  Christ,  of  him  who  really  has 
wrouo-ht  such  vast  changes  in  the  condition  of  men,  is  un- 
known ;  and,  instead  of  it,  we  have  a  fiction  of  inexpressible 
grandeur,  the  conception  of  some  Jews  of  Galilee,  fishermen, 
tax-gatherers,  and  others,  who  were  shamelessly  and  reck- 
lessly destitute  of  veracity.  —  But  we  have  brought  the  argu- 


412  EVIDENCES   OF   THE 

ment  to  an  absurdity  so  repulsive,  that  it  would  be  equally 
offensive  and  unprofitable  to  dwell  on  it  longer. 

It  follows,  then,  that  the  history  of  Jesus  contained  in  the 
Gospels  is  true.  The  essential  facts  of  religion  have  been 
ex})tessly  made  known  to  men  on  the  authority  of  God. 
They  are  fiicts,  glorious,  solemn,  overwhelming,  but  as  real  as 
the  ordinary  objects  of  every-day  life,  certain  as  nothin« 
future  in  life  can  be.  In  our  day,  the  belief  of  these  tacts  is 
openly  rejected;  the  evidence  of  them  is  continually  as^ 
sailed,  directly  and  indirectly ;  baseless  and  thoroughly  irre- 
ligious speculations  are  confidently  put  forth  and  widely 
received  as  substitutes  for  Christian  faith,  of  which,  as  in 
mockery,  they  assume  the  name ;  and  there  are-  many  who 
acquiesce  in  a  general  notion  that  religion  may  be  true,  and 
who  regard  this  notion  as  a  source  of  consolation  and  hope, 
without  any  such  settled  conviction  of  its  truth  as  may  essen- 
tially affect  their  characters.  But  if  there  be  a  God  in  whose 
infinite  o;oodness  we  and  all  thinors  are  embosomed ;  if  there 
be  a  future  life  which  spreads  before  us,  and  all  whom  we 
love,  exhaustless  scenes  of  attainable  happiness  ;  if  that  Infi- 
nite Being  who  so  eludes  the  grasp  of  human  thought,  have 
really  brought  himself  into  direct  communication  with  man- 
kind ;  if  the  character  of  Jesus  Christ  be  not  an  inexplicable 
riddle,  but  a  wonderful  reality,  —  these  are  truths  of  which  a 
wise  man  may  well  desire  fully  to  assure  himself.  And  per- 
haps there  is  no  way  in  which  he  may  attain  a  stronger 
feeling  of  certainty,  than  when  he  approaches  them,  as  we 
have  done,  through  reasoning  conversant  about  ordinary  sub- 
jects of  thought,  requiring  no  exercise  of  judgment  beyond 
the  common  capacity  of  every  intelligent  man,  not  taking  us 
into  the  dim  light  of  metaphysical  inquiry,  involving  the  use 
of  no  uncertain  language,  and  calling  forth  no  doubts  from 
that  region  which  lies  on  every  side  beyond  the  bounds  of 
our  knowledge  and  our  powers.  The  way  which  we  have 
travelled  is  such,  that  it  may  by  contrast  heighten  the  effect 


GENUINENESS   OP   THE   GOSPELS.  413 

of  the  prospect  on  which  it  opens.  It  is  somewhat  as  if,  by 
an  easy  ascent,  we  found  ourselves  standiug  on  a  vast  hei'dit, 
with  the  unbounded  ocean  spreading  out  before  us. 

But,  however  convinced  we  may  be  of  the  genuineness  of 
the  Gospels,  one  distinct  and  very  important  branch  of  the 
evidence  of  that  fact  has  not  yet  been  treated.  It  is  the  evi- 
dence founded  on  tlie  intrinsic  character  of  the  Gospels  them- 
selves,—  evidence  in  which  the  proofs  of  their  genuineness 
and  their  trutli  are  essentially  blended  together.  The  main 
proposition  to  be  established  by  it  is,  that  the  Gospels  are  of 
such  a  character,  that  they  could  have  been  written  only  by 
individuals  of  such  a  character,  and  so  circumstanced,  as  those 
to  whom  they  are  ascribed. 


ADDITIOISTAL    NOTES. 


ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 


Note  A. 

(See  pp.  15, 16,  18.) 

FURTHER   REMARKS    ON   THE    PRESENT    STATE    OF  TUJS 
TEXT  OF  THE  GOSPELS. 


Section  I. 

On  the  Character  and  Importance  of  the  Various  Headings  of  tut 
New  Testament. 

When  attention  was  first  strongly  directed  to  the  number  of  vari- 
ous readings  upon  the  Received  Text  of  the  Xew  Testament,  and 
the  critical  edition  of  Mill  was  published,  which  was  said  to  con- 
tain thirty  thousand,*  two  classes  of  individuals  were  very  differ- 
ently affected.  Some  sincerely  religious  men,  among  whom  was 
Whitby,  who  wrote  expressly  against  the  labors  of  Mill,  were 
apprehensive  that  the  whole  text  of  the  New  Testament,  the  foun- 
dation of  our  faith,  would  be  unsettled ;  while  the  infidels  of  the 
age,  among  whom  Collins  was  prominent,  were  ready,  with  other 
feelings,  to  adopt  the  same  opinion.  The  whole  number  of  various 
readings  of  the  text  of  the  New  Testament  that  have  hitherto  been 
noted  exceeds  a  hundred  thousand,  and  may  perhaps  amount  to  a 
hundred  and  fifty  thousand. 

*  That  is  to  say,  thirty  thousand  variations  from  the  Received  Text. 
But,  when  the  Received  Text  varies  from  other  autliorities,  its  reacliii<,'3 
should  also  be  considered  as  various  readings  of  the  text  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Including  these,  therefore,  Mill's  edition  presents  about  sixty  thousand 
various  readings. 

27 


418  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

But  this  number  Is,  I  presume,  less  in  proportion  than  that  of 
the  various  readings  extant  upon  most  classic  authors,  when  com- 
pared with  the  quantity  of  text  examined,  and  the  number  of 
manuscripts  and  other  authorities  collated  in  each  particular  case.* 


*  Bentley,  in  his  "Eemarks  oa  Free-thinking,"  in  answer  to  Collins, 
says: — 

"  Terence  is  now  in  one  of  the  best  conditions  of  any  of  the  classic 
writers.  The  oldest  and  best  copy  of  him  is  now  in  the  Vatican  Library, 
which  comes  nearest  to  the  poet's  own  hand;  but  even  that  has  hundreds 
of  errors,  most  of  which  may  be  mended  out  of  other  exemplars,  that  are 
otherwise  more  recent  and  of  inferior  value.  I  myself  have  collated  several, 
and  do  affirm  that  I  have  seen  twenty  thousand  various  lections  in  that  little 
author,  not  near  so  big  as  the  whole  New  Testament ;  and  am  morally  sure, 
that,  if  half  the  number  of  manuscripts  were  collated  for  Terence  with  that 
niceness  and  minuteness  which  has  been  used  in  twice  as  many  for  the  New 
Testament,  the  number  of  the  variations  would  amount  to  above  fifty 
thousand. 

"  In  the  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament,  the  variations  have  been 
noted  with  a  religious,  not  to  say  superstitious,  exactness.  Every  difference 
in  spelling,  in  the  smallest  particle  or  article  of  speech,  in  the  very  order  or 
collocation  of  words,  without  real  change,  has  been  studiously  registered. 
Nor  has  the  text  only  been  ransacked,  but  all  the  ancient  versions,  —  the 
Latin  Vulgate,  Italic,  Syriac,  JEthiopic,  Arabic,  Coptic,  Armenian,  Gothic, 
and  Saxon;  nor  these  only,  but  all  the  dispersed  citations  of  the  Greek  and 
Latin  fathers  in  a  course  of  five  hundred  years.  What  wonder,  then,  if,  with 
all  this  scrupulous  search  in  every  hole  and  corner,  the  varieties  rise  to  thirty 
thousand;  when,  in  all  ancient  books  of  the  same  bulk,  whereof  the  manu- 
scripts are  numerous,  the  variations  are  as  many,  or  more,  and  yet  no  ver- 
sions to  swell  the  reckoning? 

"  The  editors  of  profane  authors  do  not  use  to  trouble  their  readers,  oi 
risk  their  own  reputation,  by  an  useless  list  of  every  small  slip  committed 
bj'  a  lazy  or  ignorant  scribe.  What  is  thought  commendable  in  an  edition 
of  Scripture,  and  has  the  name  of  fairness  and  fidelity,  would  in  them  be 
deemed  impertinence  and  trifling.  Hence  the  reader  not  versed  in  ancient 
manuscripts  is  deceived  into  an  opinion,  that  there  were  no  more  variations 
m  tne  copies  than  what  the  editor  has  communicated.  Whereas,  if  the  like 
scrupulousness  was  observed  in  registering  the  smallest  changes  in  profane 
authors,  as  is  allowed,  nay  required,  in  sacred,  the  now  formidable  number 
of  thirty  thousand  would  appear  a  very  trifle. 

"  It  is  manifest  that  books  in  verse  are  not  near  so  obnoxious  to  varia 
tions  as  those  in  prose;  the  transcriber,  if  he  is  not  wholly  ignorant  and 
stupid,  being  guided  by  the  measures,  and  hindered  from  such  alterations  as 
do  not  fall  in  with  the  laws  of  numbers.    And  yet,  even  in  poets,  the  varia- 


TEXT   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  419 

How  such  an  amount  of  various  readings  exists  upon  tlic  text 
of  ancient  works,  we  may  understand,  when  we  consider,  what 
every  one  who  has  had  experience  on  the  subject  is  aware  of,  that 
no  written  copy  of  an  exempUir  of  any  considerable  lenixth,  if 
made  only  with  ordinary  care,  is  without  variations  and  errors. 
Notwithstanding  the  extreme  care  which  has  in  some  cases  been 
taken,  it  is  doubtful  whether  even  a  printed  book  exists  which 
corresponds  throughout  to  its  proposed  archetype,  or  which,  in 
other  words,  is  wliolly  free  from  errata.  There  is  no  hazard  in  say- 
ing, that  the  variations  in  the  printed  copies  of  King  James's  vert.ion 
of  the  Bible,  such  variations  as  are  noted  in  the  manuscripts  of 
the  New  Testament,  are  to  be  reckoned  by  thousands,  and  if,  as 
in  the  case  of  the  Greek  text  of  the  New  Testament,  we  were 
to  take  the  quotations  of  different  writers  into  account,  by  tens  of 
thousands.  But,  in  producing  copies  by  transcription,  the  num- 
ber of  errors  resulting  will  be  vastly  greater  than  in  producing  the 


tions  are  so  very  many  as  can  hardly  be  conceived  without  use  and  experi- 
ence. In  the  late  edition  of  Tibullus,  by  the  learned  Mr.  Broukhuise,  you 
have  a  register  of  various  lections  in  the  close  of  that  book,  where  you  may 
see  at  the  first  view  that  they  are  as  many  as  the  lines.  The  same  is  visible 
in  Plautus  set  out  by  Parens.  I  myself,  during  my  travels,  have  had  the 
opportunity  to  exnmine  several  manuscripts  of  thepoet  Manilius;  andean 
assure  you  that  the  variations  I  have  met  with  are  twice  as  many  as  all  the 
lines  of  the  book."     (pp.  93-95,  8th  ed  ) 

To  take  a  few  books  immediately  at  hand,  I  perceive,  by  a  loose  compu- 
tation from  a  table  at  the  end  of  Wakefield's  Lucretius,  that  he  has  collected 
about  twelve  thousand  various  readings  of  that  author  (exclusive  of  mere 
difierences  of  orthography),  trom  five  printed  copies  only.  Weiske's  edition 
of  Longinus  presents  more  than  three  thousand  various  readings  of  the 
"  Treatise  on  the  Sublime,"  a  work  of  about  the  length  of  the  Gospel  of  ]Mark, 
collected  from  eight  manuscripts  and  two  early  editions.  And  Hekker  has 
published  variathms  from  his  text  of  the  writings  contained  in  his  edition  of 
Plato,  which  fill  seven  hundred  and  seventy-eight  crowded  octavo  pages, 
and  amount  to  I  know  not  how  many  more  than  sixty  thousand;  the 
manuscripts  used  on  each  of  the  different  writings  being  on  an  average 
about  thirteen.  The  various  readings  of  the  New  Testament,  it  is  to  be 
remembered,  have  been  collected  from  a  very  great  number  of  manuscripts 
of  the  original,— manuscripts  of  nymerous  ancient  versions,  in  which  it  i.s 
not  to  be  supposed  that  the  translator  always  rendered  in  a  manner  scrupu- 
lously literal,  and  also  from  the  citations  of  a  long  series  of  fathers,  who,  we 
know,  were  not  commonly  attentive  to  verbal  accuracy  in  quoting. 


420  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

same  number  of  copies  by  the  press ;  since  far  more  liability  to 
error  will  exist  in  the  case  of  every  particular  copy  transcribed, 
than  exists  in  regard  to  a  whole  edition  of  printed  copies.  With 
these  general  views,  it  is  not  necessary  to  dwell  on  the  particular 
causes  of  mistakes  and  errors  in  ancient  manuscripts,  which  are 
more  numerous  than  may  at  first  thought  be  supposed.  They  have 
been  often  pointed  out  by  different  writers. 

I  proceed,  then,  to  observe,  that,  of  the  various  readings  of 
the  New  Testament,  nineteen  out  of  twenty,  at  least,  are  to  be 
dismissed  at  once  from  consideration ;  not  on  account  of  their 
intrinsic  unimportance, — that  is  a  separate  consideration,  —  but 
because  they  are  found  in  so  few  authorities,  and  their  origin  is  so 
easily  explained,  that  no  critic  would  regard  them  as  having 
any  claim  to  be  inserted  in  the  text.  Of  those  which  remain,  a 
very  gi-eat  majority  are  entirely  unimportant.  They  consist  in 
different  modes  of  spelling ;  in  different  tenses  of  the  same  verb, 
or  different  cases  of  the  same  noun,  not  affecting  the  essential 
meaning ;  in  the  use  of  the  singular  for  the  plural,  or  the  plural 
for  the  singular,  where  one  or  the  other  expression  is  equally 
suitable ;  in  the  insertion  or  omission  of  particles,  such  as  av  and 
6e,  not  affecting  the  sense,  or  of  the  article  in  cases  equally  unim- 
portant; in  the  introduction  of  a  proper  name, -where,  if  not  in- 
serted, the  personal  pronoun  is  to  be  understood,  or  of  some  other 
word  or  words  expressive  of  a  sense  which  would  be  distinctly 
implied  without  them;  in  the  addition  of  "Jesus"  to  "  Christ," 
or  "Christ"  to  "Jesus;"  in  the  substitution  of  one  synonymous 
or  equivalent  term  for  another ;  in  the  transposition  of  words, 
leaving  their  signification  the  same ;  in  the  use  of  an  uncom- 
pounded  verb,  or  of  the  same  verb  compounded  with  a  preposition, 
th3  latter  differing  from  the  former,  if  at  all,  only  in  a  shade  of 
meaning ;  and  in  a  few  short  passages,  liable  to  the  suspicion  of 
having  been  copied  into  the  Gospel  where  we  find  them  from  some 
other  evangelist.  Such  various  readings,  and  others  equally  unim- 
portant, compose  far  the  greater  part  of  all,  concerning  which 
there  may  be,  or  has  been,  a  question  whether  they  are  to  be  ad- 
mitted into  the  text  or  not ;  and  it  is  therefore  of  no  consequence 
in  which  way  the  question  has  been,  or  may  be,  determined. 

But  after  deducting  from  the  whole  amount  of  various  readings, 
first  those  of  no  authority,  and  next  those  of  no  importance,  a 


TEXT   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  421 

number  will  remain  which  arc  objects  of  a  certain  degree  of  curi- 
osity and  interest.  To  three  of  them  an  extravagant  importance 
has  been  attached,  from  their  supposed  bearing  upon  the  theologi- 
cal doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  But  the  principal  of  these,  the 
famous  passage  in  the  first  Epistle  of  John  (chap.  v.  7),  is  a  mani- 
fest interpolation.  In  the  case  of  this  and  of  most  other  passages, 
where  the  true  reading  is  a  matter  of  any  interest,  we  may  com- 
monly arrive  at  a  satisfactory  judgment  concerning  it;  and,  in 
regard  to  the  cases  in  which  we  cannot,  it  is  clear,  that  no  opinion, 
nor  any  inference  whatever,  respecting  the  meaning  of  the  writer, 
is  to  be  founded  on  an  uncertain  reading. 

The  Received  Text,  as  it  has  been  called,  of  the  "New  Testa- 
ment —  that  is,  the  text  which  for  almost  two  centuries,  till  after  the 
time  of  Griesbach,  was  found  with  little  variation  in  the  common 
editions  of  the  New  Testament  —  was  formed  during  the  sixteenth 
century,  with  comparatively  few  helps,  and  in  the  exercise  of  no 
great  critical  judgment.  But  the  chief  value  of  the  immense 
amount  of  labor  which  has  since  been  expended  upon  the  text  of 
the  New  Testament  does  not  consist  in  its  having  effected  im- 
provements in  the  Received  Text.  Its  chief  and  great  value 
consists  in  establishing  the  fact,  that  the  text  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment has  been  transmitted  to  us  with  remarkable  integrity ;  that 
far  the  greater  part  of  the  variations  among  different  copies  are 
of  no  authority  or  of  no  importance ;  and  that  it  is  a  matter 
scarcely  worth  consideration,  as  regards  the  study  of  our  religion 
and  its  history,  whether,  after  making  a  very  few  corrections,  Ave 
take  the  Received  Text  formed  as  it  was,  or  the  very  best  which 
the  most  laborious  and  judicious  criticism  might  produce. 

In  his  edition  of  the  New  Testament,  Griesbach  presents  the 
Received  Text  in  constant  comparison  with  his  own.  He  notes 
conspicuously,  as  preferable,  or  probable,  or  deserving  attention, 
all  those  variations  from  it  which  he  so  regards,  when  he  does  not 
admit  them  into  his  text.  The  comparison  between  all  the  read- 
ings, which  have  in  his  view  any  grade  of  probability,  is  thus 
rendei-ed  a  mei-e  matter  of  ocular  inspection.  As  a  fair  specimen 
of  the  whole,  I  will  give  all  those  which  he  thus  presents  on  the 
first  eight  chapters  of  Matthew.  When  it  may  be  done,  I  will 
express  the  change  in  English ;  but,  in  some  cases,  the  variation  is 
so  trifling  as  to  admit  of  no  corresponding  variation  in  a  trausla- 


422 


ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 


tion.  The  first  column  of  the  followhig  table  contains  the  read- 
ings of  the  Received  Text;  the  second,  the  variations  from  it. 
Those  unaccompanied  with  any  note  (except  here  and  there  a 
remark  of  my  own)  are  what  Griesbach  has  admitted  into  his  text. 
In  other  cases,  I  have  noted  with  sufficient  distinctness  the  degree 
of  probability  that  he  assigns  to  them.* 


VARIATIONS  ADOPTED  OR   SUGGEST- 


RECEIVED   TEXT. 

ED    BY    GRIESBACH. 

Chap. 

i.    1.  Aa6id 

.     ..f         ^  The  names  of  David 

6.  'EoT^.o/iuvra 

^lloauva  [      ^"^^  Solomon  diifer- 
J     ently  spelt. 

18.  Jesus 

perhaps  to  be  omitted. 

yevvrjaLC  (genej'ation) 

yevEOig  {birth) 

19.  TTapadecyfiaTiGni     {to 

perhaps,  deiyfianaai  {to  expose) 

expose  to  shame) 

22.  Tov 

perhaps  to  be  omitted. 

Chap. 

ii.  8.  carefully  search  out 

perhaps,  search  out  carefully 

9.  larri 

perhaps,  koTudn  (no  change  in  the 
sense.) 

11.  they  found 

they  saw 

15.    TOV 

perhaps  to  be  omitted. 

17.  vTcb 

perhaps,  6tu 

18.  lamentation  and 

probably  to  be  omitted. 

22.  knl 

perhaps  to  be  omitted. 

Chap. 

iii.  1.  s^ 

perhaps  to  be  omitted. 

3     VTTO 

perhaps,  Slu 

8.  fruits  woi-thy 

fruit  worthy 

10.    KOl 

perhaps  to  be  omitted. 

11.  with  fire 

perhaps  to  be  omitted.  (If  so,  it 
was  borrowed  from  Luke  iii.  16, 
where  there  is  no  doubt  of  its 
genuineness.) 

12.  his  wheat 

perhaps,  the  wheat 

Chap. 

iv.  4.  a  man 

perhaps,  7nan  (6  being  added  be- 
fore avdpcoTTo^.) 

km  {upon) 

probably,  h  {by) 

*  I  have  used  both  Griesbach's  last  critical  edition  and  his  manual  edition ; 
but  of  course  have  not  quoted  those  readings  of  the  latter  which  he  notices 
only  as  on  some  account  remarkable,  and  which  are  not  such  as  he  admits 
between  the  lines  below  the  text  of  his  critical  edition. 


TEXT   OF  THE   GOSPELS. 


423 


5.  sets  {"sets  him  on  the 
pinnacle     of     the 
temple") 
10.  Go  from  me,  Satan 


12.  Jesus 

13.  Kanepvaovjjt 


18.  Jesus 
Chap.  V.  9.  avTol 

11.  -ipEvdofiEVOi  {speaking 

fahelu) 
20.  i]  6iKaioavvtj  vfiuv 
25.  whilst  thou  art  in  the 
way  with  him 

27.  to  them  of  old  time 

28.  avTT/g 

31.  5n 

32,  whoever  shall  put  aioay 
44.  bless   those  who   curse 

you,  do  good  to  those 
who  hate  you 

In  the  last  clause,  if 
it  he  retained,  for 
Tovg  fiLGovvTac 

despitefully  use  you 
{vsiiher,  harass  you) 
and 

47.  brethren 
publicans 
do  thus 

48.  cjOTrsp 

your  Father  in  heaven 
Chap.  vi.  1.  alms 

4.  avTbg  ("  he  will  reward 

you") 
openly 

5.  when  thou  prayest,  thou 

shalt  not  be 


perhaps,  set 


Go  behind  me,  Satan   (the  words 

omau  (J.OV  being  added  by  Gries- 

bach.) 
probably  to  be  omitted, 
probably,  Ka(papvanvfi  (a  diflfcrent 

spelling  of  the  name  of  tbe  city, 

Capernaum.) 
omitted, 
perhaps  to  be  omitted.  (No  change 

can  be  made  in  a  translation.) 
perhaps  to  be  omitted. 

perhaps,  vfK'ov  ij  &LKaLoavvrj 
perhaps,  whilst  thou  art  with  him  in  • 

the  way 
omitted, 
probably,  avrfiv 
perhaps  to  be  omitted, 
perhaps,  every  one  putting  aicay 
probably  to  be  omitted.     (If  so,  it 

was  borrowed  from  Luke.) 


toIq  fitaovaiv 

perhaps  to  be  omitted.     (If  so,  it 
was  borrowed  from  Luke.) 

perhaps,  friends 

gentiles 

perhaps,  do  the  same 

perhaps,  wc 

probably,  yonv  heavenly  Father 

righteousness      (The   propriety   of 

this  change  is  doubtful.) 
perhaps  to  be  omitted.     (So  as  to 

read  "  will  rewjird  you,"  only.) 
probably  to  be  omitted, 
perhaps,  when  ye  pray,  ye  shall  not 

be 


424 


ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 


that  ("  ihat  they  have 
their  reward") 
6.  Tu  ("  pray  to  thy  Fa- 
ther who  is  in  se- 
cret") 

openly 
13.  For  thine  is  the  king- 
dom and  the  power 
and  the  glory  /or 
ever.    Amen. 


15.  their  offences 

16.  that  {''that  they  h.a.\Q 

their  reward") 
18.  KpvTTTCj)  (twice) 

openly 
21.  your  treasure 
your  heart 

24.  jMXfi/j.(jvd 

25.  and  ivhat  ye  may  drink 

84.  Ta  (in  the  Common 
Version  rendered 
"  the  things  of") 
Chap.  vii.  2.  avnueTprjOrjaeTai  [it 
shall  be  measured 
in  return) 

9.    kciTLV 

12.  ovTog  (this) 
14.  'On  {"  Because  strait 
is  the  gate  ") 


probably  to  be  omitted. 
that,  probably  to  be  omitted. 

perhaps  to  be  omitted.  (So  as  to 
read  "pray  to  thy  Father  in 
secret.") 

probably  to  be  omitted. 

omitted.  (When  our  Lord's  pray- 
er was  used  in  the  liturgies  of 
the  ancient  Church,  this  doxol- 
ogy  was  subjoined ;  and  tran- 
scribers, being  accustomed  to  it 
in  this  connection,  introduced 
it  into  their  copies.) 

probably  to  be  omitted. 

that,  probably  to  be  omitted. 

perhaps  Kpv<pat(f)   (an  improbable 

suggestion.) 
omitted. 

perhaps,  thy  treasure, 
perhaps,  thy  heart. 
fiauuva 
probably  to  be  "omitted.     (If  so,  it 

was  borrowed  from  Luke.) 
probably  to  be  omitted. 


lierprjdrjaETaL  {it  shall  be  measured) 


perhaps  to  be  omitted. 

perhaps,  ovtuc  (thus) 

Ti  {"How  straight  is  the  gate") 


[.2.  eTidcjv  {coming) 

perhaps,     Tvpoaeldcbv    {coining    up, 
namely,  to  him.) 

3.  Jesus 

perhaps  to  be  omitted. 

4.  Viuarig 

perhaps  Muva^g 

5.  TO)  'Irjaov  ("as 

Jesus 

avTu)  ("as  he  was  entering") 

was  entering 

") 

8.  Tvoyov 

TioyG) 

13.  eKaTovTapx(i> 

eKaTOVTupx^ 

TEXT   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  425 

15.  awroffC' waited  upon  perhaps,    avTu    ("waited    upon 

them")  him") 

26.  avTov     {''his     disci-  omitted  ("^/le  disciples ") 

pies  ") 

28.  Gergesenes  probably,  Gerasenes;  perhaps,  Ga- 

29.  Jesus  omitted.                              [darencs. 

31.  suffer  vs  to  go  send  us 

32,  the  herd  of  sivine  the  swine 

"  the  lierd  of  swine  "      of  swine,  omitted. 

Such  are  the  various  readings  wliich  have  been  represented  by 
other  critics  beside  Griesbach  as  rendering  one  text  difFcrent  from 
another  in  its  whole  conformation  and  entire  coloring. 

Of  the  passages  of  more  importance  in  the  Gospels,  concerning 
which  there  is  reason  to  think  that  they  did  not  proceed  from  the 
evangelists,  I  shall  speak  in  a  following  section.  Those,  how- 
ever, in  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  are  not  various  readings,  nor  is 
there  any  reasonable  doubt  that  they  always  made  a  part  of  our 
present  Greek  Gospel.  Whether  they  likewise  were  to  be  found 
in  the  Hebrew  Gospel  of  Matthew,  as  it  came  from  the  pen  of  the 
evangelist,  is  another  question.  But,  before  proceeding  to  its 
examination,  we  will  attend  to  the  questions  respecting  the  origi- 
nal language  of  Matthew's  Gospel,  and  its  use  by  the  Hebrew 
Christians. 

Section  IL 

On  tJie  Original  Language  of  Mattheio's  Gospel,  and  its  Use  hy  the 
Hebrew  Christians. 

"VYe  believe  that  Matthew  wrote  his  Gospel  in  Hebrew,  meaning 
by  that  term  the  common  language  of  the  Jews  of  his  time,  because 
such  is  the  uniform  statement  of  all  ancient  writers  who  advert  to 
the  subject.  To  pass  over  others  whose  authority  is  of  less  weight, 
he  is  affirmed  to  have  written  in  Hebrew  by  Papias,*  Irenieus.f 
Origcn,t  Eusebius,  §  and  Jerome ;  |1  nor  does  any  ancient  author 

*  See  before,  p.  139.  f  See  before,  p.  72.  }  See  before,  p.  82. 

§  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  iii.  c.  24.  Quttstiones  ad  Marinum,  ap.  Mail  Scrip- 
torum  Veterum  Nov.  Collect.,  torn.  i.  p.  64. 

II  The  fact  is  stated  or  implied  by  Jerome  in  passages  so  numerous,  that 
it  is  not  Avorth  while  to  refer  to  them  particularly'. 


426  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

advance  a  contrary  opinion.  This  testimony  is  of  the  more  weight, 
because,  if  there  had  been  any  prejudice  on  the  subject,  it  would 
have  operated  against  the  common  belief,  as  the  prejudices  of 
modern  Christians  have  done.  It  would  have  led  the  great  body 
of  ancient  Gentile  Christians,  from  whom  we  receive  the  accouut,- 
to  prefer  considering  their  Greek  Gospel  of  Matthew  as  the  origi- 
nal, not  as  a  translation. 

If  we  will  not,  then,  reject  the  testimony  of  all  Christian  anti- 
quity to  a  simple  fact,  in  which  there  is  no  intrinsic  improbability, 
we  must  believe  that  Matthew  wrote  his  Gospel  in  Hebrew.  Noth- 
ing has  been  objected  to  that  testimony  which  I  can  regard  as  of 
sufficient  force  to  justify  a  protracted  discussion.  On  the  con- 
trary, it  is  confirmed  by  the  corresponding  evidence  of  the  fathers, 
that  the  Hebrew  original  of  Matthew  was  in  common  use  (either  in 
a  pure  or  a  corrupt  form)  among  Jewish  Christians. 

One  of  the  last  notices  of  the  Jewish  Christians  in  the  New 
Testament  is  in  the  words  addressed  by  the  other  apostles  to 
St.  Paul,  during  his  last  visit  to  Jerusalem :  "  Thou  seest,  brother, 
what  multitudes  of  Jews  there  are  who  believe ;  and  they  are  all 
zealous  for  the  Law.  But  they  have  heard  concerning  thee,  that 
thou  art  teaching  all  the  Jews  living  among  the  Gentiles  to  become 
apostates  from  Moses  ;  telling  them  not  to  circumcise  their  children, 
nor  to  observe  the  ancient  customs.''''  *  The  same  attachment  to 
their  Law  continued  to  distinguish  the  great  body  of  Jewish  Chris- 
tians, though  there  were  freethinkers  among  them,  who,  as  Origen 
says,  *'  relinquished  the  ancient  customs  under  the  pretext  of  ex- 
positions and  allegories."  f  Even  these,  however,  there  is  no 
reason  to  doubt,  retained  the  rite  of  circumcision.  And,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  more  bigoted  among  them  contended  that  the  literal 
observance  of  the  Jewish  Law  was  not  only  binding  upon  Jewish, 
but  equally  upon  Gentile  Christians.  As  a  general  distinction,  the 
Jewish  Christians  believed  Christ  to  have  been  only  a  man,  in 
opposition  to  the  doctrine  of  his  divine  nature,  which,  in  some 
sense  or  other,  began  very  early  to  be  maintained  by  the  Gentile 
fathers.  Some  of  their  number  at  the  same  time  received,  and 
others  rejected,  the  belief  of  his  miraculous  conception.     And, 

*  Acts  xxi.  20,  21.      t  Origen.  cont.  Celsum,  lib.  ii.  n.  3;  0pp.  i.  388. 


TEXT   OP   THE   GOSPELS.  427 

besides  the  differences  which  have  been  mentioned,  the  separation 
between  the  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians  was  undoubtedly  in  a 
great  degree  produced  and  perpetuated  by  the  feelings  with  which 
Jews  and  Gentiles  had  previously,  for  an  indefinite  time,  regarded 
each  other.  In  the  second  century,  the  Jewish  Christians,  gener- 
all7;  were  considered  as  heretics,  and  denominated  Ebionites. 

It  appears  from  the  language  in  which  Matthew  wrote,  and 
from  the  mternal  character  of  his  Gospel,  that  he  intended  it  par- 
ticularly for  Jewish  Christians.  Conformably  to  this,  we  have 
satisfactory  evidence,  that,  as  an  heretical  sect,  they  used  it  exclu- 
sively of  the  other  three  Gospels  from  the  second  century  down- 
wards. 

Irenseus,  speaking  of  the  Jewish  Christians  under  the  name  of 
Ebionites,  repeatedly  mentions  briefly,  as  if  it  wore  a  fact  of  com- 
mon notoriety,  that  they  used  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  alone.* 

Symmachus,  one  of  the  ancient  well-known  Jewish  translators 
of  the  Old  Testament  into  Greek,  was  an  Ebionite.  He  wrote 
commentaries  in  defence  of  the  doctrine  of  his  sect,  which  are 
mentioned  by  Eusebius  (with  whom  his  translator  Rufinus  is  to  be 
compared),  Jerome,  and  others,  who  speak  of  his  reference  to,  or 
use  of,  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  without  intimating  his  use  of  any 
other  book.  Jerome  says,  that  his  commentaries  wei'e  written  on 
the  Gospel  of  Matthew. f 

By  the  name  of  Ebionites,  the  Jewish  Christians,  generally,  con- 
tinued to  be  denominated  till  the  time  of  Epiphanius  in  the  fourth 
century.  Epiphanius  divides  them  into  Ebionites  and  Nazarenes, 
being  the  first  writer  who  uses  the  latter  name  as  that  of  an  heret- 
ical sect.     His  unsupported  authority  deserves  no  credit,  when  he 

*  Cont.  Haeres.,  lib.  i.  c.  26,  §  2;  lib.  iii.  c  11,  §  7. 

t  See  Lardner,  Works,  4to,  i.  447.  Eu«ebius  (H.E.,  lib.  vi.  c.  17)  pays, 
as  I  suppose  his  words  should  be  literally  rendered,  that  Symmachus  main- 
tained his  heresy,  " strongly  contending  against  the  Gospel  of  Matthew;  " 
from  which  may  be  inferred  the  peculiar  authority  of  the  Gospel  of  Matthew 
with  the  Ebionites.  The  meaning  of  Eusebius  apparently  was,  that  Sym- 
machus contended  strongly  against  the  true  sense  of  the  Gospel  of  Mattliew. 
Rufinus,  rendering  the  passage,  as  I  conceive,  somewhat  loosely,  makes 
Eusebius  say,  that  Symmachus  '*  endeavored  to  maintain  his  heresy  from 
the  Gospel  of  Slatthew." 


428  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

relates  what  is  improbable,  or  attacks  the  character  of  those  whon* 
he  assails,  or  was  under  any  temptation  to  falsehood.  But  therb 
is  no  ground  for  distrusting  the  main  truth  of  his  assertions 
respecting  the  use  which  the  Hebrew  Christians  made  of  the  Gos- 
pel of  Matthew.  Of  those  whom  he  calls  Nazarenes,  he  saj-s, 
**  They  have  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  very  complete ;  for  it  is  well 
known,  that  this  is  preserved  among  them,  as  it  was  first  written, 
in  Hebrew."  *  Of  those  whom  he  calls  Ebionites,  he  says  that 
they  used  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  alone,  in  the  original  Hebrew, 
callino"  it  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews ;  and  the  truth  is, 
he  adds,  that  Matthew  alone,  of  all  the  writers  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, composed  in  Hebrew.f 

About  the  end  of  the  fourth  century,  Jerome  states  that  Mat- 
thew wrote  his  Gospel  in  Hebrew ;  and  that  he  had  obtained  leave 
to  transcribe  a  copy  of  the  Hebrew  original  from  the  Nazarencs  of 
Beroea  in  Syria,  by  whom  it  was  used.  J  Afterwards,  speaking  of 
this  same  work  under  the  name  of  the  Gospel  according  to  the 
Hebrews,  he  mentions  that  he  had  translated  it  both  into  Greek 
and  Latin,  and  repeatedly  observes  that  it  was  generally  consid- 
ered (ut  plerique  autumant)  as  the  Gospel  of  Matthew.  § 

The  original  of  Matthew's  Gospel,  being  used  by  the  Hebrew 
Christians,  naturally  obtained  the  name  of  "the  Gospel  according 
to  the  Hebrews."  But  copies  of  it  were  extant  containing  spuri- 
ous additions  and  variations.  The  fathers,  with  rare  exceptions, 
such  as  Origen  and  Jerome,  from  their  ignorance  of  the  Hebrew 
could  have  known  but  little  of  the  contents  of  any  copy  except  by 
report.  Jerome  particularizes  certain  additions,  which  he  found 
in  that  used  by  him.  But  we  have  no  assurance,  that  there  were 
not  other  copies  extant,  even  in  his  time,  more  conformed  to  the 
original  text.     No  father,  it  may  safely  be  presumed,  had  collated 

*  Opp-  i-  124.  Epiphanius's  want  of  accuracy,  however,  appears  in  what 
he  immediatel}'  subjoins:  "  But  I  do  not  know  whether  they  take  away  the 
genealogy  from  Abraham  to  Christ;  "  from  which  words  we  may  conclude, 
likewise,  that  he  had  not  seen  the  book  of  which  he  speaks. 

t  Opp.  i.  127. 

X  Catal.  Vir.  Illust.  in  Matth. ;  Opp.  torn.  iv.  pars  ii.  col.  102. 

§  Advers.  Pelagianos,  lib.  iii. ;  Opp.  tom.  iv.  pars  ii.  col.  533.  Comment 
in  Matth.  xii.  13 ;  Opp.  tom.  iv.  pars  i.  col.  47. 


TEXT   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  429 

different  copies.  But  the  spurious  additions  of  which  the  fathers 
had  heard,  and  which  a  very  few  of  their  number  may  have  seen 
in  some  particular  copy,  and  the  omission  in  many  copies  of  the 
first  two  cliapters  ascribed  to  Matthew  (of  which  we  shall  here- 
after speak),  threw  a  suspicion  on  the  work;  and,  under  the  name 
of  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews,  it  came  to  be  regarded  as  not  a 
canonical  book.  Hence,  in  modern  times,  the  opinion  has  been 
maintained  that  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews  was  originally  a  dilfcr- 
ent  work  from  the  Gospel  of  Matthew.  This  ojjinion  has  been 
strengthened  by  a  false  account  given  by  Epiphanius  of  the  Gosj))-! 
of  the  Hebrews,  as  he  pretends  that  it  existed  among  those  whom 
he  calls  Ebionites. 

But  in  regard  to  those  interpolations  and  changes  found  in  the 
Gospel  of  the  Hebrews,  of  which  we  have  any  authentic  informa- 
tion, there  seems  to  be  no  difficulty  in  explaining  their  origin. 
The  Ebionites,  generally,  were  illiterate.  Very  few  of  them,  it  is 
likely,  were  acquainted  with  other  books  than  those  of  the  Old 
Testament  and  the  Gospel  of  Matthew.  Probably  there  Avere 
none  among  them  who  Avere  transcribers  by  trade,  and  none, 
therefore,  who  had  acquired  those  habits  of  accuracy  and  consider- 
ation, and  that  feeling  of  responsibility,  which  might  be  found  in  a 
regular  transcriber.  It  was  to  be  expected,  therefore,  that  the 
Gospel  of  Matthew  would  suffer  in  their  hands.  It  was,  we  may 
suppose,  carelessly  copied ;  the  number  of  copies  Avas  small,  and 
they  Avere  not  compared  together  for  the  sake  of  correcting  one  by 
another;  marginal  additions,  by  a  common  mistake  of  transcribers, 
of  Avhich  I  have  before  spoken,  and  Avhich  I  shall  have  repeated 
occasion  to  notice,  "were  introduced  into  the  text;  and  it  Avould 
not  be  strange  if  there  were  transcribers  Avho  sometimes  alloAved 
themselves  to  insert  a  passage  which  they  had  derived  from  tradi- 
tion, or  from  some  other  source,  and  which  they  regarded  as  true 
and  to  the  purpose. 

Putting  aside  the  fabulous  account  of  Epiphanius,  there  are  no 
variations  in  the  Gospel  of  the  HebrcAvs  from  the  Gospel  of  IMat- 
theAV  but  such  as  may  be  thus  explained.  There  is  no  appearance, 
that  the  JcAvish  Christians,  or  any  portion  of  them,  undertook  to' 
refashion  the  Gospel  of  MatthcAV.  Nor  are  the  interpolations  or 
changes  specified  such  as  have  the  appearance  of  being  made  to 
favor  their  peculiar  opinions. 


430  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

In  regard  to  the  essential  identity  of  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews 
with  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  all  the  inter- 
polations and  changes  in  the  former,  of  which  we  have  any  credible 
account,  bear  but  a  very  small  proportion  to  the  contents  of  the 
Gospel  of  Matthew.  Yet  it  is  probable  that  Jerome  has  noticed 
all  or  nearly  all  the  remarkable  variations  existing  in  his  copy  of 
the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews.  It  appears,  therefore,  that,  through- 
out far  the  greater  part  of  their  contents,  they  coincided  with  each 
other.  This  must  have  been  the  fact,  or  it  would  not  have  been 
believed  that  they  were  originally  the  same  book.  Thus  agreeing 
together  in  far  the  greater  part  of  their  contents,  they  were  the 
same  book.  The  variations  found  in  copies  of  the  Gospel  of  the 
Hebrews  can  be  considered  only  as  variations  in  particular  copies 
of  a  common  original.  The  supposition,  therefore,  is  altogether 
groundless,  that  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  and  the  Gospel  of  the 
Hebrews  were  different  works,  by  different  authors. 

Matthew  wrote  in  the  native  language  of  the  Jewish  Christians. 
He  wrote  particularly  for  their  use.  There  was  nothing  in  his 
Gospel  to  offend  their  national  prejudices.  It  is  not  to  be  be- 
lieved, therefore,  that  they  rejected  his  Gospel,  and  substituted  an 
anonymous  gospel  in  its  stead. 

It  was,  as  we  have  seen,  the  common  belief  of  the  Gentile  Chris- 
tians, that  the  Jewish  Christians  used  the  original  of  Matthew's 
Gospel  in  a  pure  or  a  corrupted  state.  The  Jewish  Christians, 
consequently,  affirmed  that  they  used  Matthew's  Gospel ;  for  other- 
wise such  a  belief  could  not  have  prevailed.  But  no  probable 
reason  can  be  given  why  one  party  should  have  affirmed  this  fact, 
or  why  the  other  party  should  have  believed  it,  except  its  truth. 

We  conclude,  then,  that  Matthew's  Gospel  was  originally 
written  in  Hebrew ;  and  that  it  was  preserved  in  this  language,  in 
copies  with  a  text  more  or  less  pure,  by  the  Jewish  Christians  till 
about  the  fifth  century,  when  the  traces  of  their  existence  as  a 
Boct  disappear  from  history. 


TEXT   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  431 


Section  III. 

On  some  Passages  in  the  Beceived  Text  of  the  Gospels,  ofichicJi  the 
Qenuineness  is  doubtful. 


THE    FIRST   TWO    CHAPTERS   OF   THE    PRESENT    GREEK   GOSPEL  OF 
MATTHEW. 

The  first  passage  to  be  examined  consists  of  the  first  two  chap- 
ters of  Matthew's  Gospel.  There  is  no  doubt  that  they  have 
always  made  a  part  of  our  Greek  translation ;  but  this  does  not 
decide  the  question,  whether  they  proceeded  from  the  apostle. 
As  has  been  already  suggested,*  they  may  have  been  an  ancient 
document,  written  in  Hebrew,  originally  a  separate  work,  but 
which,  on  account  of  its  small  size  and  the  connection  of  its  sub- 
ject, was  transcribed  into  manuscripts  of  the  Hebrew  original  of 
Matthew,  till  in  time  it  became  blended  with  his  Gospel  as  a  part 
of  it,  in  some  copies,  one  or  more  of  which  came  into  the  hands  of 
his  translator. 

The  first  point,  then,  to  be  attended  to  in  this  inquiry  is,  that  a 
large  portion  of  the  Jewish  Christians  did  not  believe  the  miracu- 
lous conception  of  our  Lord,  and  had  not  the  account  of  it,  that  is, 
the  two  chapters  in  question,  in  their  copies  of  Mattliew"'s  Gospel. 
There  was  nothing  in  their  prejudices  or  hal)its  of  mind  which 
could  have  led  them  to  reject  the  belief  of  that  fact,  and  especially 
to  mutilate  their  Gospel  in  order  to  get  rid  of  the  account  of 
it.  But  if  this  be  so,  as  it  is  altogether  improbable  that  the  two 
chapters  would  be  lost  by  accident  from  any  number  of  copies,  it 
follows  that  they  were  an  addition  to  the  original  in  the  copies  in 
■which  they  were  found,  and  not  an  omission  in  those  in  which  they 
were  wanting. 

The  chapters  themselves  are  next  to  be  examined,  in  order  to 
determine  whether  the  narrative  contained  in  them  is  such  as  we 
can  believe  to  have  proceeded  from  the  apostle ;  and,  in  doing  so, 
we  must  compare  it  with  the  account  of  the  nativity  given  by 

*  See  before,  p.  16. 


432  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

Luke,  which,  there  is  no  plausible  reason  for  doubting,  always 
made  a  part  of  his  Gospel.  Respecting  this  account,  however,  a 
few  preliminary  remarks  are  necessary. 

I  agree  with  many  critics  in  supposing,  that  it  existed  in  a 
written  form  in  Hebrew,  previously  to  the  composition  of  Luke's 
Gospel,  in  which  he  inserted  a  translation  of  it,  perhaps  his  own, 
perhaps  one  already  made.  The  language  differs  from  that  of  the 
rest  of  his  Gospel,  as  being  more  conformed  to  the  Hebrew  idiom ; 
and  the  cast  of  the  narrative  has  something  of  a  poetical  and  even 
fabulous  character,  very  different  from  the  severe  simplicity  with 
which  he,  in  common  with  the  other  evangelists,  relates  events  in 
his  own  person.  But  his  adopting  this  narrative  proves  that  he 
regarded  it  as  essentially  true  ;  and  he  would  not  have  so  regarded 
it,  had  not  the  main  fact  of  the  miraculous  birth  of  Jesus  been 
believed  to  be  true  by  the  apostles  and  other  early  Christians  with 
whom  he  associated.  Now,  considering  that  two,  and  probably 
three,  of  the  apostles  *  were  relatives  of  Jesus,  and  that  others  of 
their  number,  as  John,  were  familiar  with  his  mother  and  family, 
there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  belief  of  the  apostles  rested  on 
information  derived  from  them. 

The  account  of  Luke,  then,  being  in  its  more  important  features 
conformable  to  the  belief  of  the  apostles,  any  other  account  incon- 
sistent with  this,  or  contradictory  to  it,  cannot  be  received  as  pro- 
ceeding from  an  apostle.  Let  us  apply  this  test  to  the  two 
chapters  in  question. 

We  are  first  struck  with  the  discrepance  between  the  two  gene- 
alogies given ;  the  one  by  the  author  of  those  chapters,  and  the 
other  by  Luke.  I  shall  not  enter  into  an  examination  of  the 
various  attempts  that  have  been  made  to  show  that  both  may  be 
true.  They  are  all  conjectural ;  and  each  is  exposed  to  particular 
objections,  of  a  nature  to  prevent  its  being  received.  \^,  for  in- 
stance, according  to  a  common  notion,  Luke  had  intended  to  give 
the  genealogy  of  Mary,  he  would  have  said  so.  He  would  not  have 
indicated  his  meaning  so  ambiguously  and  circuitously  as  by  affirm- 
ing that  Joseph  was  the  son  of  Heli,  when  he  meant  only  that  he  was 
his  son-in-law,  Heli  being  Mary's  father.     But  there  is  a  general 


*  James  the  son  of  Alpheus  and  his  brother  Jude,  and  probably  Simon 
the  Canaanite. 


TEXT    OP   THE   GOSPELS.  433 

remark  which  applies  to  them  all.  If  :Matthow  were  the  author  of 
the  two  chapters,  the  genealogy  given  by  him  was  regarded  as  cor- 
rect by  the  other  apostles.  So  also  we  may  infer,  with  equal  confi- 
dence, that  the  genealogy  given  by  Luke  was  regarded  by  them  as 
correct.  It  follows,  then,  that  the  apostles  were  acquainted  with 
two  genealogies,  both  correct,  but  at  firsc  view  irreconcilable  with 
each  other,  and  the  apparent  contradiction  of  which  has  been  re- 
garded since  the  second  century  as  presenting  a  serious  difficulty. 
In  giving  either  of  the  two,  an  apostle  or  evangelist,  aware  that 
it  might  be  confronted  by  another,  entitled  to  equal  credit,  would, 
we  may  reasonably  believe,  have  had  regard  to  this  fact,  and 
inserted  a  few  words  of  explanation.  The  supposition,  it  may  be 
added,  is  very  unlikely,  that,  according  to  the  usages  of  the  Jews, 
there  should  have  been  two  modes  of  reckoning  the  descent  of  the 
same  individual,  both  equally  proper.  We  know  nothing  to  coun- 
tenance such  an  opinion. 

If,  then,  the  genealogy  contained  in  the  two  chapters  be  irrec- 
oncilable with  that  of  Luke,  it  cannot  have  proceeded  from  Mat- 
thew. The  most  probable  conjecture,  perhaps,  is,  that  we  owe 
it,  in  common  with  the  remainder  of  the  two  chapters,  to  some 
Hebrew  convert,  who  composed  the  narrative  shortly  after  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  dispersion  of  the  Jews,  and  who, 
having  found  a  genealogy  of  some  individual  by  the  name  of 
Joseph,  represented  as  a  descendant  of  David,  mistook  it  for  the 
genealogy  of  Joseph  the  husband  of  Mary. 

As  we  proceed,  the  discrepance  between  the  account  of  the 
nativity  of  Jesus,  as  contained  in  the  two  chapters,  and  the  ac- 
count of  Luke,  continues  to  be  very  striking. 

'According  to  Luke,  Joseph  and  j\lary  dwelt  in  Nazareth.  On 
the  occasion  of  a  proposed  census,  they  both  journeyed  to  Beth- 
lehem, where  Jesus  was  born,  and  where  he  was  visited  by  shep- 
herds, to  whom  his  birth  had  been  announced  by  angels.  Forty 
days  after  his  birth,  —  that  is,  when  the  days  of  Mary's  purification, 
according  to  the  Jewish  Law,  had  been  accomplished,  —  he  was 
presented  in  the  temple,  when  his  high  destiny  was  publicly  an- 
nounced. Then,  after  performing  all  the  rites  of  the  Law,  Joseph 
and  Mary  returned  to  Nazareth. 

The  author  of  the  two  chapters,  without  mentioning  any  pre- 
vious residence  of  Joseph  and  Maiy  at  Nazareth,  relates,  that 

28 


434  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

Jesus  was  born  at  Betlileliera ;  tliat  certain  Magi  from  the  East, 
having  seen  liis  star,  came  to  pay  him  reverence ;  that  their  in- 
quiries at  Jerusalem  concerning  the  new-born  king  of  the  Jews 
threw  Herod  and  the  whole  city  into  commotion  ;  that  they  were 
directed  by  Herod  to  inform  him  when  they  had  found  the  childi 
but  were  divinely  warned  not  to  do  so ;  and  that  Joseph  was  at 
the  same  time  warned  that  the  chihFs  life  was  in  danger,  and 
directed  to  fly  with  him  and  his  mother  into  Egypt,  which  he 
accordingly  did,  and  remained  there  till  after  the  death  of  Herod. 
In  the  account  of  Joscpli"'s  return,  the  writer  shows  that  he  sup- 
posed Bethlehem  to  have  been  his  previous  place  of  residence ;  for 
he  represents  him  as  prevented  only  by  a  new  divine  warning 
from  returning  to  that  city,  and  as  led  in  consequence  to  take  up 
his  abode  at  Nazareth. 

As  it  may  be  a  matter  of  curiosity  to  those  not  flimiliar  with  the 
subject,  I  will  mention  the  manner  in  which  it  has  been  attempted 
to  reconcile  these  two  accounts.  Luke  says  (ii.  39),  that  after  the 
purification  of  Mary  in  the  temple,  "  when  they  [Joseph  and 
Mary]  had  performed  all  things  according  to  the  Law  of  the  Lord, 
they  returned  to  Galilee,  to  their  own  town,  Nazareth."  But  it  is 
contended,  that,  though  Luke  has  so  expressed  himself,  yet  the 
return  to  Nazareth  actually  meant  by  him  was  that  following  the 
flight  into  ]Cgy})t ;  that  Joseph  and  Mary  did  not  go  from  Jerusa- 
lem to  Nazareth,  but  for  some  reason  or  other  went  to  reside  at 
Bethlehem;  that,  during  this  residence  at  Bethlehem,  the  visit  of 
the  Magi  took  place ;  and,  consequently,  that  it  was  after  the  mi- 
raculous display  of  angels  at  the  birth  of  Jesus,  and  after  the  pre- 
dications which  accompanied  his  public  presentation  in  the  temple, 
that  .Jerusalem  was  first  thrown  into  commotion,  and  the  jealousy 
of  Herod  excited,  by  the  reports  and  inquiries  of  those  strangers. 

This,  then,  is  the  second  very  improbable  solution  of  an  ap- 
parent contradiction  between  the  account  in  the  two  chapters  and 
the  account  of  Luke ;  and  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  the  improb- 
ability of  the  truth  of  any  narrative  increases  in  a  very  rapid  ratio 
to  the  number  of  such  solutions  required. 

We  must  consider,  that,  if  the  account  of  Luke  respecting  the 
birth  of  Jesus  be  authentic  in  its  essential  features,  it  must  have 
been  derived  from  the  moth(;r  and  family  of  Jesus,  as  its  original 
Bource;  for  they  only  could  furnish  an  authentic  account.     But 


TEXT   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  435 

the  circumstances  related  in  the  two  chapters  are  of  such  a  charac- 
ter, that  they  could  not  have  been  forgotten  or  omitted  in  their 
narrative,  had  they  taken  place;  nor  can  we  refer  to  the  .same 
authentic  source  two  narratives  apparently  so  contradictory,  which 
coincide  in  scarcely  a  single  circumstance,  and  which,  in  their  o-en- 
eral  complexion,  present  an  aspect  so  different.  The  account 
of  Luke  being  that  received  by  the  apostles,  we  cannot  1  elieve 
another  so  unlike  it  to  have  proceeded  from  the  Apostle  Mat- 
thew. 

To  the  narrative  in  the  two  chapters,  there  are  other  objections, 
arising  from  its  intrinsic  character.  In  the  story  of  tlie  ^lagi  we 
find  represented  a  strange  mixture  of  astrology  and  miracle.  A 
divine  interposition  is  pretended,  which  was  addressed  to  the 
false  opinions  of  certain  Magi,  respecting  the  significance  of  the 
stars,  and  for  which  no  purpose  worthy  of  the  Deity  can  be 
assigned.  They  are  represented  as  having  been  guided  by  a  star, 
which  at  last  stood  over  the  place  where  the  child  was  ;  though  an 
object  but  a  little  elevated  in  the  heavens  changes  its  apparent 
position  in  reference  to  objects  seen  on  the  earth,  according  to  the 
point  of  view  of  the  spectator.  Distrusting,  however,  the  guid- 
ance of  the  star,  which  had  led  them  as  far  as  Jerusalem,  and 
which  finally,  as  we  are  told,  guided  them  right,  they  are  repre- 
sented as  inquiring  in  that  city  where  the  object  of  their  search 
was  to  be  found ;  and,  in  making  this  inquiry,  we  find  them  using 
language —  Where  is  the  neio-born  king  of  the  Jews'?  —  that  must 
have  been  altogether  unintelligible  to  those  not  equally  favored 
with  themselves  by  a  divine  communication  respecting  his  birth. 
These  inquiries,  according  to  the  account,  excited  great  alarm  in 
Herod,  who  was  fast  approaching  the  grave,  worn  out  with  insane 
passions,  disease,  and  old  age ;  and  Avhose  want  of  faith  in  the 
Jewish  religion,  and  natural  temperament,  would  have  led  him 
to  regard  Avith  derision  the  Jewish  expectations  of  a  Messiah.  He 
could  not  have  apprehended,  that  the  remainder  of  his  life  would 
be  disturbed  by  the  future  claims  to  his  throne  of  an  infant  just 
born  in  obscurity;  and  his  solicitude  about  what  might  happen, 
years  after  his  death,  to  those  of  his  children  whom  he  had  not 
destroyed,  was  little  likely  to  disturb  him.  Yet  he  is  represented 
as  having  been  so  carried  away  by  fear  and  passion,  as  to  act,  not 
only  with  the  greatest  barbarity,  bat  the  greatest  folly,  —  to  have 


436  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

ordered  an  Indiscriminate  massacre,  from  wliich  his  intended  victim 
actually  escaped ;  when  it  is  clear,  that  if  the  preceding  circum- 
stances related  by  Luke,  or  even  those  related  by  the  author  of  the 
two  chapters,  be  true,  that  victim  had  become  far  too  conspicuous 
not  to  be  very  easily  identified. 

But,  if  we  reject  the  two  chapters,  a  difficulty  arises ;  as  the 
original  Hebrew  Gospel  could  not  have  commenced  with  the  first 
words  of  the  third  chapter,  —  "But  in  those  days."  The  diffi- 
culty, however,  is  removed  by  considering,  that  these  words 
may  have  been  added  as  a  form  of  transition  to  a  new  subject, 
when  the  two  chapters  were  blended  with  the  Gospel,  and  that 
the  Gospel  may  originally  have  begun  with  the  Avords  that  fol- 
low,—  "John  the  Baptist  came  preaching  in  the  wilderness  of 
Judea ;  "  that  is,  in  a  manner  corresponding  to  the  commencement 
of  Mark's  Gospel.  Or  the  first  words  may  originally  have  been, 
*'In  the  days  of  Herod,"  meaning  Herod  the  tetrarch  of  Galilee, 
which  supposition  is,  perhaps,  countenanced  by  the  story  of  Epi- 
phanius,  before  mentioned,  that  the  Gospel  of  the  Ebionites  began, 
"  In  the  days  of  Herod,  king  of  Judcea  ;^''  the  addition  of  which  last 
words,  king  of  Judcea,  seems  to  have  been  a  blunder  of  his  own. 

But  the  commencement  of  the  third  chapter,  "In  those  days," 
presents  a  more  serious  difficulty  upon  the  supposition  that  what 
precedes  was  written  by  Matthew.  The  last  events  mentioned  at 
the  close  of  the  second  chapter  are  the  accession  of  Archelaus  as 
ruler  of  Judsea,  and  Joseph's  going  to  reside  at  Nazareth.  But  it 
was  not  in  the  time  of  those  events,  it  was  not  "  in  those  days," 
—  on  the  contrary,  it  was  about  thirty  years  afterward,  —  that 
John  the  Baptist  was  preaching  in  the  wilderness  of  Judaea. 

The  reasons  that  have  been  given  may,  I  think,  satisfy  us  that 
the  two  chapters  in  question  did  not  proceed  from  the  Apostle 
Matthew.  When  we  turn  to  the  narrative  of  Luke,  no  important 
difficulties  will,  I  think,  present  themselves  to  the  mind  of  one 
who  has  not  determined  to  reject  the  belief  of  all  miraculous  inter- 
position. The  narrative  is,  as  I  have  said,  in  a  style  rather  poetical 
than  historical.  It  was  probably  not  committed  to  writing  till 
after  the  death  of  Mary,  and  of  all  the  other  individuals  particu- 
larly concerned.  With  its  real  miracles  the  fictions  of  oral  tradi- 
tion had  probably  become  blended ;  and  the  individual  by  whom 
it  was  committed  to  writing  probably  added  what  he  regarded  af 


TEXT   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  437 

poetical  embellishments.  It  is  not  necessary  to  believe,  for  exam- 
ple, that  Mary  and  Zacliariah  actually  expressed  themselves  in  the 
rhythmical  language  of  the  hymns  ascribed  to  them;  or  to  receive 
as  literal  history  the  whole  account  respecting  the  birth  of  John 
the  Baptist,  or  of  the  different  appearances  of  an  angel  announcing 
himself  as  Gabriel.  With  our  present  means  of  judging,  however, 
we  cannot  draw  a  precise  line  between  the  truth,  and  what  has 
been  added  to  the  truth.  But  in  regard  to  the  main  event  related, 
the  miraculous  conception  of  Jesus,  it  seems  to  me  not  diflicult  to 
discern  in  it  purposes  worthy  of  God.  Nothing  could  have  served 
more  effectually  to  relieve  him  from  that  interposition  and  embar- 
rassment in  the  performance  of  his  high  mission,  to  which  he 
would  have  been  exposed  on  the  part  of  his  parents,  if  born  in  the 
common  course  of  nature.  It  took  him  from  the  control  of  Mary 
and  Joseph,  and  made  them  feel,  that,  in  regard  to  him,  they 
were  not  to  interfere  with  the  purposes  of  God.  It  gave  him  an 
abiding  sense,  from  his  earliest  years,  that  his  destiny  on  earth 
was  peculiar  and  marvellous  ;  and  must  have  operated  most  pow- 
erfully to  produce  that  consciousness  of  his  intimate  and  singular 
connection  with  God,  which  was  so  necessary  to  the  formation  of 
the  character  he  displayed,  and  to  the  right  performance  of  the 
great  trust  committed  to  him.  It  corresponds  with  his  ofRce ; 
presenting  him,  to  the  mind  of  a  believer,  as  an  individual  set 
apart  from  all  other  men,  coming  into  the  world  with  the  stamp 
of  God  upon  him,  answerably  to  his  purpose  here,  which  was  to 
speak  to  us  with  authority  from  God. 

n. 

MATTHEW,  CHAP.   XXYH.  3-10. 

In  reference  to  the  original  text  of  our  present  Greek  transla- 
tion of  Matthew,  I  know  of  nothing  extant  in  any  considerable 
number  of  copies,  which  can  be  considered  as  an  interpolation  of 
any  importance.  The  most  remarkable,  perhaps,  is  the  doxology 
at  the  end  of  our  Lord's  prayer,  already  noticed.*  But,  beside 
the  two  chapters  that  have  been  discussed,  there  are  other  pas- 
sao-es  which  are  liable  to  the  suspicion  of  having  been  interpolated 

*  See  before,  p.  424.  » 


438  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

in  the  copy,  or  in  copies,  of  the  origuial  Hebrew,  used  by  the 
transiator. 

It  is  to  be  remarked,  that,  for  determining  the  text  of  Matthew's 
Hebrew  GosjDel,  Ave  have  but  a  single  authority,  the  Greek  transla- 
tion, the  representative  perhaps  of  but  one  manuscript,  probably 
not  of  many.  But,  where  we  have  but  a  single  manuscript  for 
determining  the  text  of  an  author,  —  and  our  single  authority,  the 
Greek  translation,  amounts  to  but  little  more,  —  its  evidence  is  not 
of  great  weight  against  a  strong  presumption  of  the  spuriousness 
of  a  passage. 

Of  the  passages  referred  to,  the  genuineness  of  which  is  suspi- 
cious, one  is  the  account  of  the  conduct  and  fate  of  Judas  on  the 
morning  after  the  apprehension  of  Jesus.  I  will  give  it  with  the 
context,  Matt,  xxvii.  1-11  :  —  . 

"  But  in  the  morning,  early,  all  the  chief  priests  and  the  elders 
of  the  people  met  in  council  to  devise  how  they  might  procure  the 
death  of  Jesus.  And,  having  bound  him,  they  carried  him  before 
Pilate  the  governor,  to  deliver  him  up  to  him.  [Then  Judas,  who 
had  put  him  in  their  power,  seeing  that  he  was  condemned,  re- 
pented, and  carried  back  the  thirty  pieces  of  silver  to  the  chief 
priests  and  elders,  saying,  I  have  sinned  in  betraying  the  blood  of 
an  innocent  man.  But  they  said  to  him.  What  is  that  to  us  ?  Do 
you  look  to  it.  And  he  threw  down  the  money  in  the  temple,  and 
withdrew,  and  went  and  hanged  himself.  But  the  chief  priests, 
taking  the  money,  said.  It  is  not  lawful  to  put  it  into  the  sacred 
treasury,  since  it  is  the  price  of  blood.  And,  after  consulting 
together,  they  determined  to  purchase  with  it  the  Potter's  Field,  as 
a  burial-place  for  strangers.  Hence  that  field  has  been  called  the 
Field  of  Blood  to  this  day.  Then  was  fulfilled  what  was  said  by 
Jeremiah  the  prophet :  Aiid  tliey  took  the  tliirty  pieces  of  silver, 
the  price  of  him  who  icas  appraised,  ichom  the  children  of  Israel 
appraised;  and  they  gave  them  for  the  Potter's  Field,  as  the  Lord 
had  appointed  for  me.]  Then  Jesus  stood  before  the  governor, 
and  the  governor  questioned  him,  saying.  Art  thou  the  king  of  the 
Jews  ? " 

At  first  view,  this  account  of  Judas  has  the  aspect  of  an  interpo- 
lation. It  is  inserted  so  as  to  disjoin  a  narrative,  the  different 
parts  of  which,  when  it  is  removed,  come  together  as  if  they  had 
been  originally  united.     Whether  it  be  or  b^  not  an  interpolation. 


TEXT   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  439 

it  is  clearly  not  in  a  proper  place.  The  whole  story  apparently 
refers  to  a  period  subsequent  to  the  point  of  time  where  it  is  intro- 
duced. Between  the  evening  in  which  Jesus  was  apprehended 
and  early  in  the  morning,  no  circumstance  could  have  occurretl 
to  produce  a  great  change  in  such  a  mind  as  that  of  Judas,  or  in 
any  other.  AVhen  he  betrayed  his  jMaster,  he  knew  that  he  was 
delivering  him  into  the  hands  of  his  enemies,  whose  innnediate 
purpose  it  was  to  take  his  life.  As  the  account  is  now  placed,  it 
is  said,  that,  in  the  morning,  Judas  was  affected  with  bitter  remorse, 
because  he  saw  that  "  Jesus  Avas  condemned."  But  no  condemna- 
tion had  yet  been  passed  upon  him  by  the  Roman  governor,  and 
Judas  could  have  had  no  new  conviction  that  the  Sanhedrim  would 
use  all  their  efforts  to  procure  his  death.  Though  it  may  be  \)0s- 
sible  to  put  a  different  meaning  on  the  words,  yet  the  account, 
according  to  its  obvious  sense,  represents  Judas  as  having  had  an 
interview  with  the  chief  priests  and  the  elders  (that  is,  with  the 
Sanhedrim)  in  the  temple,  which  is  irreconcilable  with  the  course 
of  events  as  represented  by  Matthew,  in  the  context  of  the  pas- 
sage, as  well  as  by  the  other  evangelists.  Matthew  could  not 
have  described  the  Sanhedrim  as  holding  a  council  in  the  house  of 
Caiaphas,  and  proceeding  thence  to  the  house  of  Pilate,  and  also 
as  being  in  the  temple,  where  Judas  returned  them  their  money, 
and  they  deliberated  Avliat  they  thould  do  with  it. 

The  account  of  Judas  we  are  considering  is  irreconcilable  with 
that  given  by  Luke  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  (chap.  i.  18,  19). 
liuke  says :  — 

-  "  This  man  purchased  a  field  with  the  reward  of  his  iniquity,  and, 
falling  headlong,  burst  asunder,  so  that  all  his  bowels  gushed  out : 
and  this  was  known  to  all  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  so  that  the 
field  Avas  called  in  their  language  Aceldama;  that  is,  The  Field  of 
Bloody 

When  Luke  says  that  "  this  was  known  to  all  the  inlial)itants 
of  Jerusalem,"  Ave  understand  him  as  meaning  that  it  Avas  a  com- 
mon report  in  Jerusalem,  and  that  he  himself  believed  it.  I  will 
not  remark  on  the  attempts  Avhich  have  been  made  to  foree  his 
account  into  correspondence  Avith  that  noAV  found  in  Matthew's 
Gospel.  To  me  it  seems  clear,  that,  if  Luke^s  be  i-orrect,  that 
which  Ave  are  examining  must  be  erroneous  in  every  particular. 
But  there   is  no  doubt  that  the   passage  quoted  Irom  the  Acts 


440  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

is  genuine ;  and  Luke,  in  giving  the  common  report,  may  be  pre- 
sumed to  have  stated  what  was  believed  by  the  apostles,  as  well  as 
others. 

In  the  conclusion  of  the  account  found  in  Matthew's  Gospel, 
there  is  an  extraordinary  misuse  of  a  passage  of  Zechariah,  which ' 
the  writer  professes  to  quote  from  Jeremiah.  I  put  out  of  view 
the  notion,  that  he  may  have  found  words  answering  to  what  he 
has  given  in  an  apocryphal  book  ascribed  to  Jeremiah,  of  which 
we  nowhere  find  mention  except  in  a  single  passage  of  Jerome, 
more  than  three  centuries  after  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  was 
written.  The  mistake  of  the  name  Jeremiah  for  Zechariah  seems 
to  show  that  tlie  writer  quoted  from  memory ;  and  this  may  serve 
in  part  to  explain  the  strange  use  which'  he  makes  of  the  words  of 
the  latter.  The  changes  of  sense,  which  could  not  have  had  this 
origin,  may  be  accounted  for  by  the  allegorical  and  cabalistical 
modes  of  interpreting  the  Old  Testament  that  existed  among  the 
Jews.  The  passage  of  Zechariah  (chap.  xi.  12,  13),  may  be  thus 
translated :  — 

"  Then  I  said  to  them.  If  it  seem  good  in  your  eyes,  give  me 
my  wages.  If  not,  keep  them.  And  they  weighed  for  my  wages 
thirty  shekels  of  silver.  And  Jehovah  said  to  me,  Cast  it  into  the 
treasury,  the  goodly  price  at  which  I  was  valueil  by  them.  And  I 
took  the  thirty  shekels  of  silver,  and  cast  them  into  the  house  of 
Jehovah,  into  the  treasury."  * 

The  word  here  rendered  "treasury"  commonly  means  "pot- 
ter ; "  and  the  only  reason  for  not  so  rendering  it  in  the  present 
case  is  the  difficulty  of  explaining  why  a  potter  should  be  spoken 
of  as  being  in  the  house  of  the  Lord.  In  the  quotation  found  in 
MatthcAv,  "  the  potter"  is  changed  into  "  the  Potter's  Field." 

The  inapplicability  of  the  words  of  Zechariah  to  the  purpose  for 
which  they  are  cited  in  the  passage  under  consideration  needs  no 
illustration.  Similar  perversions  of  the  Old  Testament,  by  chan- 
ging the  words  and  sense  of  the  original,  may  be  found  in  the  Rab- 
binical writings ;  but  no  other  quotation  of  the  same  character  is 


*  I  give  the  translation  of  my  friend,  the  Rev.  Professor  Noyes  (New 
Translation  of  the  Hebrew  Prophets,  iii.  210).  Jehovah  considers  the  wages 
of  the  prophet  as  his  own  wages,  and  the  contempt  of  the  prophet  the  same 
as  the  contempt  of  himself. 


TEXT   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  441 

adduced  by  Matthew.  If  we  believe  the  first  two  chapters  to  be 
the  work  of  another  hand,  we  may  say  that  he  has  nothing  resem- 
bling this  quotation  from  Zechariah.  On  tlie  contrary,  in  the 
quotations  which  are  found  elsewhere  in  his  Gospel,  the  apjdi- 
cahility  of  the  words  of  the  original  to  the  subject  about  which  he 
has  used  them  is  apparent.  This  fact  indicates  the  habit  of  his 
mind,  from  which  we  conclude  that  it  is  not  probable  the  quo- 
tation in  question  was  made  by  him. 

III. 

MATTHEW,  CHAP.  XXVII.,  PART  OF  VER.  52  AND  53. 

Another  passage  which  one  may  believe  to  have  been  interpo- 
lated in  the  copy,  or  in  copies,  of  the  original  Hebrew  used  by  the 
translator,  is  that  answering  to  the  words  of  the  following  quota- 
tion which  are  included  in  brackets. 

"  And  lo  !  the  veil  of  the  temple  was  torn  asunder  from  the  top 
to  the  bottom  ;  and  the  earth  was  shaken,  and  the  rocks  were 
rent,  and  the  sepulchres  laid  open ;  [and  many  bodies  of  saints 
who  slept  were  raised,  and,  leaving  their  sepulchres,  after  his  res- 
urrection, entered  the  holy  city  and  appeared  to  many.]  " 

Who,  it  may  be  asked,  were  these  saints?  Not  disciples  of 
Christ ;  for  many  of  them  had  not  died.  Not  unconverted  Jews 
of  that  time ;  for  to  them  such  a  title  would  not  be  applied.  How 
long  had  they  lain  in  their  sepulchres  ?  We  cannot  but  suppose, 
that  corruption  had  done  its  work  on  the  larger  portion ;  and  is  it 
to  be  thought,  that  God  would  re-create,  as  it  were,  those  moulder- 
ing bodies  without  some  purpose  far  different  from  what  can  be 
discerned?  What  purpose,  indeed,  can  be  discerned?  They 
appeared,  it  is  said,  to  many  ;  but  we  do  not  find  that  any  converts 
were  made  in  consequence,  nor  can  we  perceive  that  any  good 
whatever  followed,  directly  or  indirectly,  from  their  appearance. 
Supposing  the  story  to  be  true,  many  to  whom  they  did  not  appear 
would  regard  it  as  a  fable ;  and  its  circulation  would  only  tend  to 
throw  discredit  on  the  testimony  to  the  resurrection  of  Christ 
himself.  Were  those  saints  in  fact  recalled  to  life,  and  did 
they  die  again,  and  their  bodies  resume  their  places,  win  u 
their  supposed  mission  to  the  living  was  accomplished?  Is  it 
possible,  if  such  an  astonishing  miracle  had  been  performed.  —  a 


442  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

miracle  more  adapted  to  excite  consternation  than  any  in  the 
whok^  history  of  the  evangelists, — that  one  really  acquainted  with 
such  a  fact  should  have  known  nothing  of  the  consequences  that 
must  have  resulted  from  it,  or  that,  knowing  those  consequences, 
he  should  not  have  thought  it  worth  while  to  record  them?  Is  it- 
likely,  that  so  strange  a  marvel,  about  which  all  Jerusalem  must 
have  been  full  of  excitement,  should  have  been  mentioned  but  by 
one  evangelist,  and  that  so  slightly  ?  Is  it  credible,  that  Avhen,  as 
far  as  we  know,  but  three  mdividuals  were  restored  to  life  by 
Jesus  himself,  and  this  in  solemn  attestation  of  his  divine  mission, 
many  bodies  of  saints  should  have  been  raised  under  such  circum- 
stances as  that  the  fact  should  contribute  little  or  nothing  to  estab- 
lish the  truth  of  our  religion? 

After  Cliris^s  resurrection^  it  is  said,  they  left  their  sepulchres, 
and  went  into  the  holy  city.  In  this  extraordinary  statement  we 
may  recognize,  I  think,  the  fabrication  of  some  relater  of  the 
story.  He  apprehended,  that,  if  the  saints  were  represented  as 
rising  and  appearing  on  the  day  when  Christ  was  crucified,  it 
might  seem  to  deprive  him  of  the  title  of  First-horn  from  the 
dead ;  and  therefore  had  recourse  to  the  not  very  successful  expe- 
dient of  postponing  their  appearance  till  after  his  resurrection. 

If  these  views  are  correct,  the  story  must  ,be  regarded  as  a 
fable ;  probably  one  which,  in  common,  perhaps,  with  others  now 
utterly  forgotten,  was  in  circulation  among  the  Hebrew  converts 
after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Some  possessor  of  a  manu- 
script of  Matthew's  Hebrew  Gospel  may  be  supposed  to  have 
noted  it  in  the  margin  of  his  copy,  whence  it  found  its  way  into  the 
text  of  others,  one  or  more  of  which  fell  into  the  hands  of  the 
Greek  translator. 


In  connection  with  the  mention  of  supposed  interpolations  In  the 
Gospels,  I  have  referred  to  the  Avords  ascribed  to  our  Lord,  in  the 
fortieth  verse  of  the  twelfth  chapter  of  Matthew.*  On  this  pas- 
sage I  remark  below. f 


*  See  before,  p.  17,  note. 

t  I  do  not  speak  of  the  passage  in  the  text,  because  I  do  not  believe  it 
to  be  an  interpolation.  I  give  the  words  in  brackets,  with  those  preced- 
ing:— 


TEXT   OF  THE   GOSPELS.  443 

IV. 

TILE  CONCLUSION  OF  MARK'S  GOSPEL.     (CHAP.   XVL  0-20.) 

Wo  pass  to  the  Gospel  of  INIark.  In  this  there  is  but  one  pas- 
sage that  demands  consideration.  It  consists  of  the  last  twelve 
verses  of  his  Gospel,  from  the  ninth  verse  of  the  sixteenth  chapter, 
inclusive,  to  the  end. 

"  A  wicked  and  apostate  race  would  have  a  sign;  but  no  sign  will  be 
given  it,  except  the  sign  of  Jonah  the  prophet,  [for  as  Jonah  was  three 
days  and  three  nights  in  the  belly  of  the  lish,  so  will  the  Son  of  man  be 
three  days  and  three  nights  in  the  heart  of  the  earth.]  " 

The  words  of  our  Lord  are  thus  reported  by  Luke,  chap.  xi.  29,  30:  — 

"  This  is  a  wicked  race.  It  wouUl  have  a  sign  ;  but  no  sign  will  be  given 
it,  except  the  sign  of  Jonah.  For  such  a  sign  as  Jonah  Avas  to  the  Ninevitca 
■will  the  Son  of  man  be  to  this  generation." 

If  we  regard  what  is  given  by  Luke  as  a  correct  report  of  what  was  said 
by  Jesus,  we  may  suppose,  that  the  explanation  of  the  sign  of  Jonah,  by 
a  comparison  of  his  being  three  days  and  three  nights  in  the  belly  of  a 
fish  with  our  Lord's  being  three  days  and  three  nights  in  a  tomb,  which 
is  found  in  Matthew,  but  not  in  Luke,  was  introduced  into  our  Lord's 
discourse  during  the  time  that  it  was  preserved  by  oral  tradition.  His  own 
brief  words  leaving  his  meaning  undelined,  they  were  understood  by  some 
as  referring  to  the  extraordinary  marvel  related  in  the  stoty  of  Jonah;  and, 
being  so  understood,  this  explanation  became  connected  with  them.  There 
seems  to  be  no  reason  for  supposing,  that  it  was  inserted  in  Matthew's  Gos- 
pel b}'-  any  other  than  the  evangelist  himself 

But  it  cannot  readily  be  believed,  that  our  Lord  would  have  represented 
his  being  three  daA'S  and  three  nights  in  the  heart  of  the  earth  as  the  only 
sign  of  his  divine  mission  to  be  given  to  the  Jews.  This  would  have  been 
admitting  what  they  had  just  implied,  that  no  sign  of  his  divine  mission 
had  alread}^  been  given  them. 

Nor,  if  we  regard  as  fabulous  the  story  that  Jonah  remained  alive  for 
three  days  and  three  nights  in  a  fish  by  Avhich  he  had  been  swallowed,  is  it 
credible  that  our  Lord  would  have  referred  to  a  fiction  of  this  sort  in  the 
manner  represented;  especially  as  it  does  not  appear  from  the  narrative  con- 
cerning Jonah,  that  the  supposed  miracle  was  any  sign  to  the  Ninevites,  or 
was  even  known  to  them. 

It  mav  be  added,  that  our  Lord  is  made  to  say,  that  he  would  be  three 
days  and  three  nights  in  the  tomb.  He  was,  in  fact,  laid  in  the  tomb  on  the 
night  of  Friday,  — probably  late  at  night,  — and  rose  before  the  dawn  of 
Sundav  morning;  and  no  use  of  language  can  be  produced  which  mav  justify 
tae  caUing  of  such  a  period  of  time  three  days  and  three  nights.    Its  heiwj 


444  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

It  is  remarkable,  that  while  Griesbach  does  not,  in  his  i^  -^ 
Testament,  affix  to  them  any  mark  of  doubt,  he  argues  at  length 
against  their  genuineness  in  his  Commentarms  Criticus.  The 
state  of  external  testimony  respecting  thein  is  as  follows  :  — 

They  are  not  found  in  the  Vatican  manuscript.  In  the  Codex- 
Stophani  v,  after  the  eighth  verse,  it  is  said,  The  following  also  is 
extant,  which  words  precede  a  short  conclusion  undoubtedly  spu- 
rious, and  then  come  the  words,  This  also  is  extant ;  after  which 


so  called  can,  I  think,  be  accounted  for  only  by  the  loose  manner  in  which 
the  Jews  were  wont  to  accommodate  together  passages  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  events  of  which  they  regarded  those  passages  as  descriptive, 
prophetic,  or  typical.     Of  this  it  is  not  a  remarkable  example. 

The  meaning  of  the  words  of  Jesus,  as  reported  by  Luke,  and  also  by 
Matthew,  with  the  omission  of  those  under  consideration,  may  be  thus  ex- 
plained:— 

Jesus  was  surrounded  by  men  full  of  bigotry,  evil  passions,  and  mortal 
hatred  towards  himself, — men  who  were  resisting  the  strongest  evidences  of 
his  divine  mission,  ascribing  his  miracles  to  the  agency  of  Satan,  and  de- 
manding in  mockery  some  sign  of  his  divine  mission,  some  manifestation  of 
God's  power  in  attestation  of  it,  as  if  the  most  striking  attestations  of  it  had 
not  been  already  given.  His  view  turned  to  that  destruction  of  their  nation 
which  Avas  impending  over  the  Jews,  as  the  punishment  of  their  rejection  of 
him.  No  sign,  he  says,  Avill  be  given  to  this  wicked  and  apostate  race,  no 
manifestation  of  God's  power  will  be  made  to  them  which  they  will  believe 
and  feel  to  be  such,  except  a  prophet  of  destruction  such  as  Jonah  was  to  the 
Ninevites,  whose  warnings  —  to  pursue  the  train  of  thought  which  was  in 
the  mind  of  our  Lord  —  will  be  disregarded,  and  whose  predictions  of  ruin 
will  be  accomplished. 

Thus  he  immediately  subjoins:  "The  men  of  Nineveh  will  rise  up  before 
the  judgment-seat  with  this  race,  and  condemn  it:  for  they  reformed  upon  the 
preaching  of  Jonah ;  and  lo  !  one  greater  than  Jonah  is  here." 

However  fabulous  may  be  the  story  of  Jonah,  there  was  nothing  unsuit- 
able to  our  Lord's  character  in  thus  using  it.  Speakers  and  writers  of  every 
age  and  country  have  recurred  to  well-known  works  of  fiction  as  readily  as 
to  authentic  history  for  analogies  and  exemplifications  fitted  to  affect  the 
imaginations  of  their  hearers  or  readers.  It  Avould  be  folly  to  suppose,  that, 
in  doing  so,  they  meant  to  vouch  for  the  truth  of  the  books  which  they 
have  thus  quoted.  It  is  only  in  the  reasonings  of  divines  that  these  facts 
have  been  overlooked,  —  in  those  reasonings  in  which  our  Lord  and  the 
writers  of  the  New  Testament  have  been  considered  as  giving  their  authority 
for  the  truth  and  for  the  genuineness  of  all  books  referred  to  or  quoted  by 
tliem. 


TEXT    OF   THE   GOSPELS.  445 

follow  the  twelve  verses  in  question.  Tn  more  than  forty  otlier 
manuscripts,  they  arc  accompanied  l)y  various  remarks,  to  tlio 
effect  "  that  they  were  wanting  in  some,  but  found  in  tlie  ancient 
copies  ;  "  "  that  they  were  in  many  copies  ;  "  "  that  tliey  had  l)oci) 
considered  spurious,  and  were  wanting  in  most  copies  ;  "  "  tliat  they 
were  not  in  the  more  accurate  copies;"  and,  on  the  otlier  hand, 
"  that  they  were  generally  in  accurate  copies." 

In  the  other  manuscripts  of  the  Gospels  beside  those  mentioned, 
the  passage  in  question  is  found  without  remark ;  and  likewise  in 
all  the  ancient  versions,  with  the  exception  of  the  Armenian  (in 
the  manuscripts  of  which,  as  appears,  it  is  either  omitted  or 
marked  as  of  doubtful  credit) ,  and  likewise  of  the  copy  of  an  Arabic 
version  preserved  in  the  Vatican  Library. 

The  nineteenth  verse  is  distinctly  quoted  by  Irenseus  as  from 
the  Gospel  of  Mark ;  *  and  the  passage  in  question  appears  to 
have  been  recognized  as  genuine  by  some  other  fathers. f  But  no 
part  of  it  is  quoted  by  Origen.  According  to  Eusebius,  almost  all 
the  copies  of  Mark's  Gospel,  including  the  most  accurate,  ended 
with  wliat  is  now  the  eighth  verse.  J  Gregory  of  Nyssa  states, 
that  the  passage  was  not  found  in  the  more  accurate  copies ;  §  and 
Jerome  says,  that  it  was  but  in  few,  being  wanting  in  almost  all 
the  Greek  manuscripts.  j|  I  pass  over  other  authorities  against  it 
of  less  importance. 

This  state  of  the  external  evidence  is  such  as  to  render  the 
genuineness  of  the  passage  suspicious ;  especially  when  we  con- 
sider, that  it  was  the  natural  tendency  of  transcribers  rather  to 
preserve  than  to  reject  what  they  found  in  an  exemplar  before 
them.  They  had  the  feeling,  that  it  rendered  their  copy  more 
complete.  To  reject  was  to  assume  responsibility  ;  to  retain  was 
yielding  to  authority;  and,  in  addition,  there  has  always  been 
a  strong,  however  irrational,  sentiment,  that,  when  there  is  a 
doubt  whether  a  passage  may  not  be  a  portion  of  Sacred  Writ,  it 


*  Cont.  Hceres.,  lib.  iii  c.  10,  §  6,  p   188. 

t  Not,  hoAvever,  by  Clement  of  Rome,  nor  Justin,  who  are  cited  as  quot- 
ing it  in  the  editions  of  the  New  Testament  by  Griesbach  and  Scholz,  nr>r 
I  think,  by  Clement  of  Alexandria,  who  is  also  adduced. 

I  Qua?stiones  ad  Marinum,  pp.  61,  02. 

§  Orat.  ii.  in  Christi  Resurrect.;  0pp.  iii.  411. 

II  Ad  Hedibiam,  de  QujBstionibus ;  0pp.  iv.  pars  i.  col.  172. 


446  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

is  profane  to  reject  it,  —  a  sentiment  of  which  we  have  had  full 
proof  in  our  day ;  the  manifest  corruptions  found  in  the  Received 
Text  of  the  New  Testament  being,  some  of  them,  still  inserted  in 
editions  of  the  original,  and  all  of  them  retained  in  the  Common 
English  Version,  as  published  by  authority.  The  dread  of  taking 
from  Scripture  any  thing  Avhich  might  be  a  part  of  it  has  been  far 
stronger  than  the  apprehension,  at  least  equally  reasonable,  of 
adding  to  Scripture  something  not  belonging  to  it.  Thus,  Euse- 
bius,  after  mentioning  that  some  rejected  the  passage  under  con- 
sideration, as  wanting  in  most  copies,  and  among  them  the  most 
accurate,  adds,  that  "others,  not  daring  to  reject  any  thing  whatever 
that  is  extant,  through  any  circumstance,  in  the  manuscripts  of  the 
Gospels,  say  that  there  is  here  a  double  reading,  as  in  many  other 
places,  and  that  both  are  to  be  received,  because  the  faithful  and 
pious  will  not  undertake  to  decide  in  favor  of  one  rather  than  the 
other.''  * 

But,  in  addition  to  this  common  feeling,  transcribers  must  have 
been  peculiarly  reluctant  to  reject  the  passage  before  us ;  for,  if 
struck  off,  it  leaves  the  Gospel  of  Mark,  in  its  conclusion,  strange- 
ly incomplete  and  unsatisfactory.  This,  which  every  one  feels, 
must  have  been  felt  by  them.  It  is,  I  conceive,  the  main  argu- 
ment for  the  genuineness  of  the  passage,  and  one  which  at  first 
view  may  seem  almost  conclusive. 

Before,  however,  considering  this  argument,  we  will  attend  to 
the  internal  character  of  the  passage,  to  ascertain  what  proof  this 
may  afford  respecting  the  point  at  issue. 

There  is,  then,  a  difference  so  great  between  the  use  of  lan- 
guage in  this  passage,  and  its  use  in  the  undisputed  portion  of 
Mark's  Gospel,  as  to  furnish  strong  reason  for  believing  the  pas- 
sage not  genuine.     I  give  examples  in  a  note  below. f 

*  Quaestiones  ad  ^larinum,  p.  62. 

1"  There  are  various  woixls  and  niodes  of  expression  peculiar  to  this  pa.s- 
page,  not  connected  with  the  expression  of  any  thing  peculiar  to  its  sulject: 
but,  on  the  contrary,  of  such  a  character,  that,  if  they  had  been  familiar  to 
Mark,  they  would  probably  have  occurred  elsewhere  in  his  writings.  Such 
are  the  following:  — 

Ver.  9.  TrpuTy  jyaOGdrov ,  instead  o^  iila  ca66uT(ui>,  the  expression  used  by 
Mark  a  little  before,  and  by  all  the  other  evangelists,  in  speaking  of  the  day. 
UpuTi]  aa66uTov  occurs  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testament. 


TEXT   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  447 

To  proceed  to  other  considerations:  In  the  ninth  verse  (the 
first  of  the  disputed  passage),  Mavy  IMagdalene  is  described  as  if 
unknown  to  the  reader,  —  "  IMary  Magdalene,  from  whom  he  cast 
out  seven  demons."  Now,  as  she  had  been  mentioned  hy  JMark 
several  times  within  a  few  preceding  pages,  it  is  not  likely  that  this 
mode  of  designating  her,  to  be  expected  only  concerning  an  indi- 
vidual lirst  introduced  to  notice,  should  have  been  used  by  him. 
It  seems  to  have  been  the  work  of  the  author  of  the  addition, 
writing  with  too  little  reference  to  what  preceded  in  the  (iospel. 

The  Avords  ascribed  to  our  Saviour  in  these  verses  dilfcr  so 
much  in  tlieir  character  from  any  elsewhere  recorded  as  his,  either 
by  Mark  or  any  other  of  the  evangelists,  that  it  is  difTicuFt  to 
believe  them  to  have  been  uttered  by  him.  "  And  he  said  to  his 
disciples,  Go  to  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  the  whole 
creation.  He  who  believes  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  safe;  he  who 
disbelieves,  shall  be  condemned.  And  these  signs  shall  accom- 
pany those  who  believe  :  in  my  name  they  shall  cast  out  demons ; 
they  shall  speak  new  languages ;  they  shall  take  up  serpents ;  if 
they  drink  any  deadly  thing,  it  shall  not  hurt  them ;  they  shall  lay 
their  hands  upon  the  diseased,  and  they  shall  be  well."  In  these 
words,  represented  as  the  last  that  Jesus  addressed  to  his  apostles, 
there  appears  a  want  of  that  moral  dignity  which  is  characteristic 
of  his  discourses,  and  which  we  should  above  all  expect  upon  this 
occasion.  The  particular  enumeration  of  miracles  to  be  performed 
is  not  in  his  manner.  He  would  not,  in  giving  his  last  solemn 
charge  to  his  apostles,  have  turned  away  their  thoughts  froui   a 

Ver.  10.  eKFLvr],  and  ver.  11.  kukeIvol.  This  u?e  of  EKclvog,  not  dcnion- 
Btrative  nor  emphatical,  occurs  nowhere  else  in  Mark's  Gospel. 

Ver.  10.  The  expression  oi  fier'  avrov  yevo/jfvoi  to  denote  the  disciples 
of  Jesus,  of  which  use  of  the  words  there  is  no  other  example  in  the  New 
Testament. 

Ver.  19.  6  KvpioQ,  and  ver.  20.  tov  Kvplov.  ]\Iark  in  his  own  person  no- 
where else  applies  this  title  to  Christ. 

Passing  over  the  Avords  peculiar  to  this  passage,  the  use  of  which  may  be 
accounted  tor  from  something  peculiar  in  its  subject,  the  following  nowhere 
else  occur  in  the  Gospel  of  Mark:  1.  nopevofiai,  the  participles  of  which  are 
used  three  times;  2.  -QsuoLiat,  used  as  a  verb,  and  likewise  as  its  participle; 
3.  uTnaTeo),  verb  and  participle;  4.  fiETu  ravra;  5.  ^rfpof ;  6.  varepov; 
7.  TvaoaKoAovdEo) ;  8.  STuitttcj  ;  9.  (mev  ovv;  10.  rtavraxov ;  11.  aviEpyeu; 
12.  6£6ac6u ;  13.  kKaKoTiOvdiu. 


448  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

consideration  of  their  high  duties  to  an  anticipation  of  the  various 
miraculous  powers  which  they  and  other  believers  were  to  possess. 
Some  of  the  miracles  enumerated  are  of  a  kind  very  different  froir 
those  which  he  and  his  apostles  Avere  accustomed  to  perform. 
They  do  not,  like  their  works  of  mercy,  bear  in  their  very  charac- 
ter the  stamp  of  a  divine  mission.  They  were  liable  to  be  con- 
founded with  the  ti-icks  of  pretended  magicians.  Some  of  the 
powers  promised  could  be  of  no  use  to  others,  and  of  none  to  the 
possessor,  except  in  case  of  a  rare  accident.  But,  above  all,  if,  as 
I  think  is  certain,  miraculous  powers  were  not  granted  to  be- 
lievers generally,  then  this  promise  that  they  would  be  so  granted 
—  *'  These  signs  shall  accompany  those  avIio  believe"  —  could  not 
have  been  uttered  by  Christ,  and,  we  may  conclude  with  almost 
equal  confidence,  could  not  have  been  ascribed  to  him  by  the 
evangelist. 

There  is,  throughout  these  verses,  an  extraordinary  conciseness 
of  narration,  very  different  from  the  common  manner  of  Mark, 
■who  usually  details  facts  in  more  words  and  with  more  circum- 
stances than  any  other  of  the  evangelists.  It  is  the  manner  of  one 
adding  only  what  he  thought  necessary  to  form  some  proper  con- 
clusion to  the  Gospel. 

But  on  the  other  hand,  to  recur  to  the  argument  before  men- 
tioned, it  may  be  said,  that  it  is  incredible  that  Mark  should  have 
left  his  Gospel  with  so  abrupt  and  unsatisfactory  an  ending  as  it 
must  have  had,  if  he  had  broken  off  with  the  eighth  verse  of  the 
last  chapter ;  and  that  this  consideration  alone  is  sufficient  to  do 
away  the  whole  force  of  the  preceding  remarks.  I  allow  it  to  be 
incredible  that  Mark  should  thus  have  ended  his  Gospel  design- 
edly and  by  choice ;  but  it  is  not  incredible  that  he  should  have 
been  interrupted  in  his  labors  by  accident.  What  that  accident 
was,  must  be  a  matter  of  conjecture.  But  there  is  nothing  incred- 
ible or  improbable  in  supposing,  that  some  accident  may  have 
occurred  to  prevent  him  from  finishing  his  Gospel  as  he  intended ; 
and  there  are  historical  circumstances  which  afford  ground  lor 
conjecturing  what  that  accident  may  have  been. 

According  to  ancient  accounts,  of  which  there  is  no  reason  for 
doubting  the  essential  correctness,  the  apostle  Peter,  near  the 
close  of  his  life,  went  to  Rome,  with  Mark  for  his  companion.    He 


TEXT   OF  THE   GOSPELS.  449 

there  preached  the  gospel,  while  Mark,  as  is  related,  composed,  at 
the  request  of  his  hearers,  a  written  gospel,  of  which  his  preaching 
was  the  basis.  But  the  terrible  persecution  of  the  Christians 
under  Nero  broke  out  in  the  year  G-t ;  and  in  that  or  the  following 
year,  as  appears  probable,  Peter  was  crucified.  Here  all  authen- 
tic accounts  of  Mark  end ;  for  the  story  of  his  going  from  Home 
and  preaching  at  Alexandria  can  be  traced  no  higher  than  to  a 
hearsay  of  Eusebius,  and  is  connected  with  relations  of  a  nature 
wholly  to  destroy  its  credit.  In  that  persecution,  INIark  may  have 
perished  also  ;  or,  if  he  did  not,  the  anguish  of  mind  which  he  nmst 
have  suffered,  or  imprisonment,  or  a  rapid  llight  from  the  city,  or 
some  other  cause  connected  with  that  period  of  frightful  distress 
and  anxiety,  may  have  prevented  him  from  completing  his  work. 
Copies  of  it,  however,  being  taken  in  its  imperfect  state,  we  may 
suppose,  that,  at  an  early  period,  some  individual  possessing  one 
of  these,  who  was  procuring  new  transcripts  to  be  made,  added  the 
brief  conclusion  which  we  now  find,  in  order  to  complete  the 
work.  As  the  history  is  in  fact  unfinished  without  it,  it  soon  came 
to  be  considered  by  very  many  as  a  part  of  the  original  Gospel,  or 
as  a  proper  addition  to  it ;  and  it  has  thus,  we  may  suppose,  found 
fts  way  into  a  great  majority  of  our  present  copies. 


LUKE,  CHAP.  IX.  55,  56. 

When  our  Lord  and  his  disciples  were  refused  hospitality  by 
the  Samaritans  of  a  certain  village,  which  was  an  act  of  peculiar 
disrespect  according  to  the  notions  of  that  age  and  country,  James 
and  John,  in  common,  doubtless,  with  the  other  disciples,  were 
indignant  at  such  treatment.  They  recollected  what,  according  to 
the  Jewish  history,  had  been  the  dealings  of  prophets  of  old  with 
those  who  offended  them ;  they  were  disposed,  on  this  as  on  other 
occasions,  to  take  the  lead  among  the  disciples ;  and,  under  the 
excitement  of  the  moment,  they  addressed  Jesus  with  the  ques- 
tion, "Master,  shall  we  call  down  fife  from  heaven  and  destroy 
them?  — as  Elijah  did. 

"But  he  turned  and  rebuked  them;  [and  said.  Ye  know  not 
of  what  spirit  ye  are.     For  the  Son  of  man  came  not  to  destroy 

29 


450  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

men's  lives,  but  to  save  them.]  And  they  went  to  another  vil- 
lage." 

We  can  conceive  of  no  words  more  appropriate  to  the  occasion, 
more  suitable  to  the  character  of  our  Lord,  or  better  fitted  to 
repress  and  correct  the  wrong  feelings  of  his  disciples.  They 
conveyed  a  reproof  fidl  of  instruction,  expressed  at  once  in  the 
mildest  and  the  most  effectual  form. 

One  who  is  not  a  critical  student  of  the  New  Testament  may 
therefore  be  surprised  to  learn,  that  these  words  Avere  probably 
not  in  the  Gospel  of  Lidce  as  written  by  him.  They  are  wanting 
in  a  large  majority  of  the  oldest  and  most  important  manuscripts. 

The  omission  of  a  passage  which  was  part  of  the  original  text 
of  a  Avork  must  be  the  result  either  of  accident  or  of  design.  No 
accident  can  be  supposed  Avhich  would  lead  to  the  concurrent 
omission  of  a  passage  in  many  manuscripts,  which,  like  those  in 
the  present  case,  were  written  independently  of  one  another ;  that 
is,  of  which  one  was  not  copied  from  another.  There  is  only  one 
class  of  accidents  of  omission  which  admits  of  any  particular  ex- 
planation, such  as  may  justify  us  in  supposing  the  possibility,  that 
an  accident  of  this  class,  affecting  a  particular  passage,  might 
occur  in  a  few  unconnected  copies.  The  omissions  referred  to  are 
those  which  proceed  from  the  circumstance,  that  one  clause  ends 
with  the  same  word  or  the  same  series  of  syllables  as  another 
following  it,  so  that  the  eye  of  a  transcriber  may  glance  from  the 
former  to  the  latter  ending,  and  omit  the  intervening  words,  — 
omissions  in  consequence  of  an  liomoioteleiiton  (that  is,  "like 
ending  "  ),  as  they  are  technically  called.  But  this  cause  of  omis- 
sion does  not  exist  in  the  passage  before  us. 

If,  then,  the  words  ascribed  to  Jesus  originally  made  a  part  of 
Luke's  Gospel,  they  must  have  been  omitted  by  design ;  and  tliis 
supposition  has  been  resorted  to.  It  has  been  suggested,  that  they 
were  struck  out  by  catholic  Christians,  that  the  Marcionites  might 
not  use  them  in  defence  of  their  opinions.* 

As  I  have  elsewhere  {ante,  pp.  170,  171)  more  fully  ex- 
plained, the  Marcionites,  in  counnon  with  the  other  Gnostics, 
regarded  Judaism  as  a  very  imperfect  dispensation,  with  which 


*  "  Orthodoxi  hnec  videntur  delevisse,  ne  Marcionitaj  habereut  quo  se  tue- 
rentur." —  Wetsteiu,  ad  locum. 


TEXT   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  4ol 

Christianity  in  many  respects  stood  in  contrast;  they  conceived 
of  it  as  proceeding,  not  from  the  true  God,  but  from  an  inferior 
god,  who  had  fashioned  this  material  worhl ;  and  they  behcvcd, 
that  the  apostles  generally,  through  their  Jewish  prejudices,  did 
not  fully  comprehend  the  character  of  Christianity.  lu  the  ])as- 
sage  before  us,  our  Lord  is  represented  as  saying  to  two  of  the 
principal  apostles,  '*  Ye  know  not  of  what  spirit  ye  are  :  "  that  is, 
as  I  doubt  not  that  the  words  should  be  understood,  "  Ye  know 
not  the  spirit  of  my  religion ;  "  and  in  his  own  conduct  he  pre- 
sents the  spirit  of  Christianity  in  contrast  with  what  was  conceived 
to  be  the  spirit  of  Judaism,  as  exemplified  in  the  story  concerning 
Elijah.*  The  passage,  therefore,  is  one  which  the  Marcionites 
might  naturally  have  thought  to  be  very  much  to  their  purpose. 

But  we  cannot  thus  account  for  its  omission.  Nor  can  we 
adopt  any  other  supposition,  which  is  designed  to  explain  its 
absence  from  so  many  copies,  on  the  ground  of  there  being  some- 
thing obnoxious  in  its  character. 

There  is  no  evidence,  and  no  probability,  that  transcribers 
among  catholic  Christians  were  accustomed  to  omit  passages 
through  the  influence  of  any  theological  prejudice,  or  because  they 
might  seem  to  them  to  present  a  difficulty,  of  whatever  kind  that 
might  be.  If  such  had  been  the  fact,  there  must  have  been  abun- 
dant evidence  of  it  in  the  present  state  of  the  authorities  for 
settling  the  text  of  the  New  Testament ;  but  such  evidence  does 
not  exist.  Catholic  Christians,  to  say  nothing  of  their  reverence 
for  the  Scriptures,  Avere  not  so  deficient  in  honesty  and  in  good 
sense  as  to  adopt  or  countenance  such  a  course.  In  regard  to  the 
passage  before  us,  every  transcriber  must  have  shrunk  from  thus 
dealing  with  the  words  of  Jesus  himself.  Without  doubt,  like- 
wise, the  generality  of  those  engaged  in  the  transcription  and  sale 
of  books  pursued  their  business  as  a  trade,  and  troubled  tiiem- 
selves  little  about  the  bearing  of  particular  passages. 

But  should  we  admit  that  some  few  transcribers  were  so  alarmed 
at  the  use  which  the  Marcionites  might  make  of  the  passage,  that, 
though  they  could  not  expunge  it  from  the  copies  of  the  Marcion- 
ites, they  struck  it  out  of  their  own ;  or  that  they  were,  for  any 
other  reason,  so  scandalized  at  the  words  of  our  Lord,  that  they 

*  The  story  is  told  in  2  Kings,  chap.  i. 


452  ADDITIONAL   NOTES 

resolved  not  to  be  concerned  In  preserving  them,  — yet  their  mis- 
conduct could  affect  only  the  copies  which  they  transcribed.  If 
■we  suppose  the  omission  to  have  been  made  after  the  controversy 
•with  the  Marcionites  had  commenced,  it  could  not  have  affected 
many  thousands  of  copies  already  spread  over  the  world,  nor 
those  copies  which  might  be  made  by  more  trustworthy  tran- 
scribers ;  nor  could  it  have  counteracted  the  constant  tendency 
there  would  have  been  to  fill  up  the  gap  which  had  been  left,  — 
the  tendency  among  transcribers,  of  which  I  have  before  spoken, 
to  insert,  and  not  to  omit.  We  cannot,  therefore,  account  for  the 
absence  of  the  passage  from  so  many  copies  on  the  ground  of  in- 
tentional omission. 

But  it  is  further  to  be  observed,  that  the  Marcionites  made  no  use 
of  the  words  of  our  Lord,,  though  apparently  so  nmch  to  their  pur- 
pose. If  they  had  done  so,  we  should  have  evidence  of  the  fact  in 
the  writings  of  their  opponents,  particularly  of  TertuUian.  But 
nothing  to  that  effect  appears.  This  is  the  more  remarkable,  as 
TertuUian,  in  his  long  work  against  Marcion,  twice  notices  the  use 
which  the  Marcionites  made  of  the  narrative,  by  contrasting  the 
conduct  of  Jesus  and  Elijah,*  but  refers  to  no  appeal  made  by 
them  to  the  words  of  Jesus.  Had  those  words  been  generally 
recognized  as  genuine  in  the  time  of  the  earlier  Marcionites,  they 
could  hardly  have  failed  to  use  them. 

In  discussing  the  question,  whether  a  passage  omitted  in  cer- 
tain manuscripts  should  or  should  not  be  considered  as  a  part  of 
the  original  text,  it  has  not  been  uncommon  to  array  on  one  side 
the  authorities  which  recognize  it  as  genuine,  and  on  the  other 
side  those  Avhich  do  not.  The  intrinsic  value  of  one  class  of  au- 
thorities, considered  in  reference  to  their  general  character,  is 
then  weighed  against  that  of  the  other  class,  and  the  passage  is 
judged  to  be  genuine  or  not,  according  as  either  class  preponder- 
ates, —  except,  indeed,  that  a  zeal  for  defending  the  Received 
Text  often  causes  the  critic  to  lay  a  heavy  hand  upon  the  scale  in 
which  are  placed  the  authorities  for  retaining  it.  But  this  mode 
of  reasoning  is  wholly  fallacious.     If  a  passage  be  genuine,  we 

*  Aclvers.  Marcion.,  lib.  iv.  c.  23,  p.  438;  c.  29,  p.  446. 


TEXT   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  453 

may  reasonably  expect  to  find  it,  not  in  a  majority  of  the  copiea 
of  the  work  to  which  it  belongs,  but  in  all  the  copies,  except  so 
far  as  in  particular  cases  a  satisfiictory  reason  may  be  assigned  for 
its  omission.  If  there  be  any  copy  in  which  it  is  not  found,  this  ia 
a  fact  to  be  accounted  for.  An  interpolation  may  be  extant  in  a 
majority  of  copies.  It  may  have  been  originally  inserted  incon- 
siderately or  fraudulently.  It  may  by  mistake  have  "been  taken 
from  the  margin  into  the  text,  —  a  mistake  of  so  very  fre(pient 
occurrence,  that  I  am  obliged  often  to  refer  to  it.*  Having  been 
once  inserted,  its  spread  from  one  copy  to  many  is  easily  explained 
by  the  uncritical  habits  of  transcribers,  and  their  disposition  to 
retain  whatever  they  found  given  as  a  part  of  the  text  before 
them.  The  noted  passage  interpolated  in  the  Jewish  Antiquities  of 
Josephus,  in  which  mention  is  made  of  Jesus,  is  not  only  quoted  by  a 
series  of  Christian  fathers  from  Eusebius  downward,  but  is  extant 
at  the  present  day  in  all  the  manuscripts  of  that  work.  It  appears, 
therefore,  that  the  genuineness  of  a  passage  is  not  established  by 
its  being  found  in  a  majority  of  the  most  important  copies  of  the 
work  of  which  it  may  be  supposed  to  be  a  part.  To  satisfy  tiie 
conditions  of  proof  required,  it  should  be  found  in  all ;  unless  (as 
I  have  said)  a  sufficient  and  probable  cause  can  be  assigned  for 
its  absence. 

These  are  general  principles  of  criticism,  to  be  kept  in  view  In 
regard  to  the  passage  before  us,  and  others  which  we  are  about  to 
consider.  The  present  passage,  indeed,  is  not  found  in  a  majority 
of  the  most  important  manuscripts ;  but  it  is  found  in  a  large  ma- 
jority of  the  manuscripts  of  Luke's  Gospel,  taken  indiscriminately, 
and  in  many  of  the  versions. 


*  A  marginal  note  has  crept  into  the  text,  says  Person  in  his  Letters  to 
Travis  (pp.  149,  150),  "not  merely  in  hundreds  or  thousands,  but  in  millions 
of  places.  Naiura,  says  Daille,  ita  comparatum  est,  ut  auctonim  probakn-utn 
lib/'os  jdeiique  omnes  amplos  quam  breves  malint;  verentes  scilicet,  ne  quid  sibi 
desit,  quod  auctoris  vel  sit  vel  esse  dicntur.  To  the  same  purpose  Bengelius: 
Non  facile  pro  superjiuo  aliquid  hodie  habent  complures  docti  viri  (he  miglit 
have  added,  omnesque  inducti),  eddemque  mente  jylerique  quondam  librnrii 
fuere.  From  this  known  propensity  of  transcribers  to  turn  every  thing  into 
text  which  they  found  written  in  the  margin  of  their  miuiuscripts  or  between 
the  lines,  so  many  interpolations  have  proceeded,  that  at  present  the  surest 
canon  of  criticism  is,  Prayferatur  lectio  breviory 


454  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

Its  omission  in  the  copies  in  which  it  is  not  found  cannot,  as  we 
have  seen,  be  accounted  for  as  having  been  caused  either  by  acci- 
dent or  by  design.  We  must  conclude,  therefore,  that  it  did  not 
make  a  part  of  the  original  text  of  Luke's  Gospel. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  words  carry  with  them  strong  in- 
trinsic proof  that  they  were  spoken  by  Jesus.  Nor  can  we 
imagine  any  reason  why,  if  not  uttered  by  him,  they  should  have 
been  invented  and  ascribed  to  him. 

In  this  state  of  the  case,  the  only  solution  of  the  appearances 
that  present  themselves  seems  to  be,  that  the  words  ascribed  to 
our  Lord  were  spoken  by  him  ^  that  they  were  preserved  in  the 
memories  of  those  who  heard  him,  and  communicated  by  them  to 
others ;  and  that,  not  having  been  recorded  by  Luke,  they  were 
first  written  in  the  margin,  and  then  introduced  into  the  text 
of  his  Gospel. 

But  the  appearances  are  such,  that,  this  general  explanation 
being  given,  we  must  enter  further  into  particulars.  The  Cam- 
bridge manuscript  and  some  other  authorities  omit  only  the  last 
words  ascribed  to  our  Lord,  and  preserve  the  first;  namely,  "  Ye 
know  not  of  ivJiat  spirit  ye  are^  And  some  manuscripts,  in- 
cluding the  Vatican  and  the  Codex  Stephani  rj,  which  omit  all  our 
Lord's  words,  omit  also  the  words,  "  As  Elijah  diciy  It  may 
seem,  therefore,  that  the  account  of  the  words  of  our  Lord  and  his 
disciples  was  not  introduced  in  a  complete  form  at  once,  but  that 
the  text  owes  its  present  state  to  marginal  additions  made  at 
three  different  times;  first,  the  words,  ^^  As  Elijah  did,''"'  being 
written  down,  as  these  are  wanting  in  the  smallest  number  of 
manuscripts,  then  those  first  spoken  by  our  Lord,  and  then  his 
remaining  words. 

VL 

LUKE,  CHAP.  XXn.  43,  44. 

In  the  Gospel  of  Luke  there  is  but  one  other  passage  of  any 
importance,  the  genuineness  of  which  there  seems  good  reason  for 
doubting.  It  consists  of  the  forty-third  and  forty-fourth  verses  of 
the  twenty-second  chapter. 

"And  there  appeared  to  him  an  angel  from  heaven,  strength- 
ening him.     And,  being  in  an  agony,  he  prayed  the  more  ear* 


TEXT   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  455 

nestly ;  and  his  sweat  was  as  great  drops  of  blood  Hilling  to  tlio 
ground." 

Not  to  mention  some  other  authorities  of  little  consequence, 
these  verses  are  wanting  in  the  Alexandrine  and  Vatican  manu- 
scripts. They  are  likewise  not  in  the  Sahidic  vert^ion.  In  ten 
manuscripts,  tliree  of  them  in  uncial  letters,  they  are  marked  as 
doubtful. 

They  are  not  quoted  by  Origen  or  by  Tertullian.  The  fact 
is  remarkable,  especially  as  regards  the  latter  writer,  in  whose 
earnest  arguments  against  those  heretics  Avho  denied  that  Clii'ist 
had  a  body  of  flesh  and  blood,  no  passage  in  the  Gospels  would 
have  seemed  more  to  his  purpose. 

In  the  fourth  century,  Hilary,  Bishop  of  Poictiers,  says,  "  We 
ought  not  to  be  ignorant,  that  in  very  many  Greek  and  Latin 
manuscripts  (m  Greeds  et  in  Latinis  codicibus  complurimls) 
nothing  is  to  be  found  concerning  the  coming  of  the  angel,  or  the 
bloody  sweat."  * 

Jerome,  in  writing  against  the  Pelagians,  reproaches  them  with 
believing  that  men  can  will  what  is  good  without  the  grace  of  God, 
when  even  the  Saviour  was  strengthened  by  an  angel.  "  Jn  some 
copies,"  he  says,  both  Greek  and  Latin  (in  quibusdam  exemplari- 
bus  tarn  Grcecis  quam  Latinis),  we  find  that  ''  there  appeared  to 
him  an  angel  from  heaven  strengthening  him,''''  &c.,  to  the  end  of 
the  passage. f  Jerome  was  not  of  a  temper  to  understate  facts 
from  which  he  was  reasoning;  and,  when  he  says  that  it  was  found 
in  some  copies,  we  may  conclude,  that  it  was,  as  Hilary  says,  want- 
ing in  very  many. 

Epiphanius  likewise  reasons  from  the  passage,  his  purpose  being 
to  prove  the  double  nature  of  Christ.  But  he  says  of  it,  "  It  is 
found  in  Luke^s  Gospel,  in  those  copies  which  have  not  been  sub- 
jected to  a  revision ;  and  the  holy  Irenrous,  in  his  work  against 
Heresies,  uses  it  as  an  argument  to  confute  those  who  denied  the 
real  body  of  Christ :  %  ^^ut  orthodox  ])ersons  struck  it  out  through 
fear,  not  understanding  its  bearing  and  its  great  force."  § 


*  De  Trinitate,  lib.  x.  §  41;  0pp.  col.  1062. 
t  Adversus  Pehigianos,  lib.  ii.;  0pp.  iv.  pars  ii.  col.  52] 
J  It  is  referred  to  by  Iren^us,  lib.  iii.  c.  22,  §  2,  p.  219. 
§  Ancorat.,  §  xxxi.;  0pp.  ii.  36. 


4:56  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

Epiphanius  does  not  assert  that  it  was  found  in  many  copies 
of  his  time.  It  was  found,  he  says,  in  those  which  had  not 
been  revised,  that  is,  inspected,  after  the  transcriber  had  done 
his  work,  by  some  person  responsible  for  the  correctness  of 
the  text,  —  a  care  which  was  undoubtedly  taken  of  all  copies 
pretending  to  accuracy.  It  was  found  in  so  few,  that,  in  order 
to  prove  its  genuineness,  he  appeals  to  its  being  quoted  by 
Irenaeus ;  and  not  venturing  to  assert,  as  he  undoubtedly  would 
have  done  if  he  had  dared,  that  it  had  been  expunged  by  heretics, 
he  lays  the  charge  upon  "orthodox  persons,^' — a  charge  utterly 
improbable. 

After  the  prevalence,  in  the  fifth  century,  of  the  Monopliysite 
heresy,  —  the  heresy  which  ascribed  but  a  single  nature  to  Christ, 
and  that  the  divine, —  the  passage  became  a  favorite  text  with  the 
orthodox,  as  proving  his  double  nature.  It  had,  much  earlier, 
been  used  by  Irenaeus  against  those  who  denied  the  real  body  of 
Christ.  Thus  recommended  to  the  favor  of  the  early  Christians,  and 
of  the  orthodox  of  later  times,  it  readily  made  its  way  into  a  great 
majority  of  our  extant  authorities,  assisted,  doubtless,  by  the  oper- 
ation of  the  principle  which  led  those  who  had  the  care  of  the 
transcription  of  manuscripts  rather  to  admit  what  was  of  doubtful 
credit,  than  to  reject  what  might  be  a  part  of  Scripture.  We  have 
proof  from  writers  of  the  ninth  and  tenth  centuries  of  its  use  in  the 
Monophysite  controversy,  and,  at  the  same  time,  of  its  continued 
absence  from  many  copies  ;  for  they  charge  its  omission  upon  the 
Monophysite  Christians  of  Syria  and  Armenia,* 

The  objections  which  present  themselves  to  the  passage,  con- 
sidered in  its  intrinsic  character,  are  the  following :  —  The  agony 
of  Christ  is  represented  as  existing  after  the  angel  had  been  sent 
to  strengthen  him.  The  bloody  sweat  described  is  such  as  we 
have  no  authority  for  believing  was  ever  produced  by  mere  distress 
of  mind,  if  it  have  been  by  any  other  cause.  The  account  appears 
at  variance  with  the  character  of  Christ,  and  especially  with  that 
calmness,  self-possession,  and  firmness  which  he  manifested  during 
the  evening  and  night  previous  to  his  apprehension,  before  and 
after  separating  from  his  disciples  on  Mount  Olivet;  and  with 
which  his  expressions  of  great  suffering,  recorded  by  the  other 

*  Vide  Wetsten.  Nov.  Test.,  ad  locum. 


TEXT   OF   THE    GOSPELS.  457 

evangelists,  present  nothing  inconsistent.  It  does  not  appear  how 
any  one  could  have  witnessed,  or  become  acquainted  with,  tho 
events  related ;  for  Jesus  had  removed  to  a  distance  from  his  dis- 
ciples, and,  Avhen  he  returned,  found  them  asleep.  There  is  notli- 
ing  improbable  in  the  supposition,  that,  even  amid  the  horror  of 
tlwse  moments,  he  told  them,  for  their  benefit,  in  a  few  brief  words, 
what  had  been  the  purport  of  his  prayer ;  and  he  might,  indeed, 
have  also  communicated  the  facts  in  question,  sui)posing  them  to 
have  occurred.  But  had  they  really  been  made  known  by  him, 
under  such  circumstances,  they  were  adapted  to  produce  so  deep 
and  lasting  an  impression  upon  the  feelings,  that  an  apostle,  as 
INIatthew,  could  hardly  have  forborne  to  relate  them.  We  should 
expect  to  find  them  mentioned,  not  by  one  evangelist  only,  but 
by  all. 

It  may  be  observed  further,  that,  if  this  passage  be  struck  out, 
the  parts  of  the  text  which  it  separates  come  together,  as  if  the 
passage  had  been  interposed  between  them,  without  any  appear- 
ance of  a  chasm. 

We  may  suppose,  then,  that  it  was  a  passage  first  written  in  the 
margin  of  some  very  early  manuscript,  and  subsequently,  through 
the  mistake  of  transcribers,  taken  into  the  text  of  other  copies. 
The  narrative  perhaps  owes  its  present  form  to  a  misunderstand- 
ing of  language.  It  having  been  said,  that  Jesus,  in  his  agony, 
received  strength  from  on  high,  and  angels  being  regarded  by  the 
Jews  as  the  ministers  of  God,  it  was  inferred,  we  may  suppose, 
that  he  was  strengthened  by  the  mission  of  an  angel.  There  is 
likewise  ground  for  believing,  that  "  to  weep  blood  "  was  anciently 
an  expression  for  weeping  bitterly,  and  that  "to  sweat  blood" 
was  used  to  denote  a  violent  struggle  ;  and  the  account  before  us 
may  have  arisen  from  taking  such  figurative  language  in  too  literal 
a  sense. 

If  the  passage  were,  as  I  think,  originally  a  marginal  addition, 
it  must  have  been  made  in  an  early  age,  and  have  soon  been  taken 
into  the  text  of  some  manuscripts ;  for  it  is  quoted  by  Justin  ^Mar- 
tyr  in  the  following  words,  which  are  remarkable  from  apparently 
involving  a  reference  to  Luke,  as  one  of  the  companions  of  tho 
apostles:  "In  those  Memoirs  which  I  afiirm  to  have  been  com- 
posed by  apostles  of  Christ  and  their  companions,  it  is  said 
that  sweat  like  drops    of  blood  fiowed  from    him   while  pray 


458  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

tn^."  *  A  little  later,  as  we  have  seen,  it  was  quoted  by  Trenaeus, 
It  is  said  to  have  been  alleged  by  Hippolytus,  not  long  afterwards, 
in  proof  of  the  human  as  well  as  divine  nature  of  Christ. f  But  I 
find  no  reference  to  its  appearing  in  the  writings  of  any  other  of 
the  fathers,  before  the  notice  of  it  already  quoted  from  Hilary, 
about  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century. 


VII. 

JOHN,  CHAr.  V.  3,  4. 

We  proceed  to  the  Gospel  of  John.  The  first  passage  to  be 
noticed  is  the  account  of  the  descent  of  an  angel  into  the  Sheep- 
pool  at  Jerusalem.  I  will  give  the  words  which,  are  probably 
spurious  in  their  connection,  putting  them  within  brackets. 

.loHN  V.  1-8.  —  "After  this  there  was  a  festival  of  the  Jews; 
and  Jesus  went  up  to  Jerusalem.  Now,  thei'e  is  at  Jerusalem,  by 
the  Sheep-gate,  a  pool  called  in  Hebrew  Bethesda,  having  five 
porches.  In  these  lay  a  number  of  diseased  persons,  blind,  lame, 
withered,  [waiting  for  the  moving  of  the  water.  For  an  angel, 
at  certain  times,  descended  into  the  pool,  and  troubled  th(}  water ; 
then  Avhoever  first  entered  it,  after  the  troubling  of  the  water, 
was  cured  of  whatever  disease  afflicted  him.]  And  there  was  a 
man  there  who  had  been  diseased  for  thirty-eight  years.  This 
man  Jesus  saw  lying,  and,  knowing  that  his  disease  had  now  con- 
tinued for  a  long  time,  said  to  him,  Wilt  thou  be  made  well? 
The  sick  man  answered  him.  Master,  I  have  no  one  to  put  me 
into  the  pool  when  the  water  is  troubled.  But,  while  I  am  going, 
some  other  descends  before  me.  Jesus  says  to  him,  llise,  take 
up  thy  bed,  and  walk." 

The  whole  of  the  doubtful  passage  is  omitted  in  the  Vatican 
manuscript,  in  the  Ephrem  as  first  written,  in  two  others  of  less 
note,  in  manuscripts  of  the  Coptic  version,  and  in  some  one  or 
more  of  the  Sahidic ;  and  Nonnus,  who,  about  the  beginning  of 
the  fifth  century,  wrote  a  metrical  paraphrase  of  the  Gospel  of 


*  Dial,  cum  Tryph.,  p.  361. 

t  Hippolytus  is  quoted  to  this  eflfect  by  Theodoret  in  his  Eranistes,  Dial 
ii. ;  0pp.  iv.  p.  S9. 


TEXT   OP   THE   GOSPELS.  459 

Jolin,  says  nothing  of  tlie  descent  of  an  angel,  but  speaks  of  tho 
water  as  rusliing  forth  in  spontaneous  jets. 

The  fourth  verse,  beginning,  For  an  angel,  &c.,  is  omitted  in 
the  Cambridge  manuscript  and  one  other,  and  is  niarktMl  as 
doubtful  in  more  than  fifteen  others.  It  is  wanting  in  the  manu- 
scripts of  the  Armenian  version  generally,  and  in  several  of  the 
old  Latin  versions. 

On  the  other  hand,  this  verse  being  retained,  the  last  clanso 
of  the  third,  limiting  for  the  moving  of  the  loaters,  is  wanting 
in  the  Alexandrine  manuscript,  as  first  written,  the  Codex  Ste- 
phani  77,  and  one  other. 

I  find  no  historical  remarks  respecting  the  omission  or  insertion 
of  the  story  of  the  descent  of  an  angel.  It  is  referred  to  by  Ter- 
tullian,*  but  it  is  not  noticed  in  the  extant  works  of  any  other  Chris- 
tian writer  before  Ambrose  and  Chrysostom  in  tlie  fourth  century. 

The  pool  spoken  of  in  tlie  passage  appears  to  have  been  fed  by 
an  intermitting  spring.  Tlie  story  of  the  descent  of  tlie  angel  was 
founded  on  the  superstition  of  the  Jews,  who,  in  common  with  the 
Heathens,  were  accustomed  to  ascribe  any  remarkable  natural 
phenomenon  to  supernatural  agency.  AVhat  the  former  accounted 
for  by  the  descent  of  an  angel,  the  latter  might  have  explained 
by  some  mythological  fable.  The  circumstances  of  the  case  alto- 
gether preclude  the  supposition,  that,  in  giving  this  solution,  there 
was  any  pretence  that  the  descent  of  the  angel  was  visible. 

In  the  simple  narrative,  which  alone,  I  conceive,  is  to  be 
ascribed  to  St.  John,  something,  as  is  not  uncommon  with  the 
evangelists,  is  left  unexplained ;  namely,  what  is  meant  by  the 
moving  of  the  waters,  and  why  it  was  supposed  that  then  only  they 
had  a  sanative  power.  This,  I  presume,  led  some  early  possessor 
or  transcriber  of  a  manuscript  of  his  Gospel  to  write  the  popular 
account  in  its  margin,  whence  it  was  assumed  into  the  text  of 
others.  But  for  its  omission,  or  the  marks  of  doubt  with  which  it 
is  inserted,  no  satisfactory  reason  can  be  given,  supposing  it  to 
have  been  originally  written  by  St.  John.f 

*  De  Baptismo,  c.  5,  p.  226. 

t  In  the  passage  the  following  words  occur,  not  elsewhere  used  by  John: 
iKSexofiat,  df/noTe,  KarixcJ,  and  v6ar]/ia,  —  beside  KLvrjaig  and  Kara  Kaipov, 
the  use  of  which  in  this  passage  alone  may  be  accounted  for  by  the  nature 
of  its  subject. 


460  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

We  have  reason  to  believe  that  St.  John  did  not  adopt  the 
error  of  his  countrymen  respecting  the  agency  of  an  angel  in 
the  case  in  question,  because  he  appears  to  have  been  free  from 
another  much  more  general.  He  ascribes  no  diseases  to  demonia- 
i;al  possession. 

vin. 

JOHN,  CILiP.  Vn.  53  — \TII.  11. 

The  narrative  of  the  woman  taken  in  adultery  is  omitted  in  so 
Qiany  copies,  and  marked  as  doubtful  or  spurious  in  so  many 
others,  that,  reasoning  on  the  principles  which  have  been  laid 
down,  we  may  conclude  with  confidence  that  it  was  not  written  by 
3t.  John.  But  I  perceive  no  ground  for  questioning  the  truth  of 
the  account :  it  is  related  in  a  striking  and  natural  manner,  and 
bears  an  intrinsic  character  of  probability. 

There  are,  in  different  copies  of  this  narrative,  great  variations 
of  language,  expressive  of  the  same  essential  meaning.  This  may 
be  accounted  for  in  several  ways.  We  may  supppose  that  the 
story  was  first  written  in  some  other  language  than  the  Greek,  and 
translated  into  this  by  two  different  hands ;  or  that,  being  first 
written  in  Greek,  and  then  translated  into  -Latin,  it  is  found  in 
some  copies,  as  the  Cambridge  manuscript  for  example,  retrans- 
lated from  the  Latin  into  the  Greek ;  or,  what  is  perhaps  as 
probable  a  solution  as  any,  that  it  was  written  down  in  Greek  by 
two  different  individuals,  from  the  oral  narration  of  St.  John,  and 
afterwards  appended  to  his  Gospel,  in  which  it  had  not  been 
inserted  by  himself.  The  passage  may  be  thus  rendered,  according 
to  what  are  perhaps  the  most  probable  readings  :  — 

"And  every  one  went  to  his  house;  and  Jesus  went  to  the 
Mount  of  Olives.  But  in  the  morning  he  was  again  in  the  temple, 
and  all  the  people  came  to  him ;  and,  having  sat  down,  he  was  in- 
structing them,  when  the  teachers  of  the  Law  and  the  Pharisees 
brought  a  woman  taken  in  adultery,  and,  placing  her  in  the  midst, 
said  to  him.  Teacher,  this  woman  was  taken  in  the  very  act  of 
adultery ;  and,  in  the  Law,  Moses  commands  us  that  such  should 
be  stoned  to  death:  what  now  dost  thou  say?  This  they  asked 
with  a  design  to  ensnare  him,  that  they  might  have  an  accusation 
against  him.     Then  Jesus,  bending  down,  wrote  with  his  finger 


TEXT   OF   THE   GOSPELS.  4G1 

upon  the  ground.  But,  as  they  persisted  in  questioning  liiin,  he 
raised  his  head,  and  said  to  them,  Let  him  among  you  who  is  with- 
out sin  cast  the  first  stone  at  her.  And,  bending  down  again,  he 
wrote  upon  the  ground.  And,  hearing  this,  they  went  out  one  by 
one,  beginning  with  the  oklest ;  and  Jesus  was  left  alone  with  the 
woman  standing  in  the  midst.  Then  Jesus,  raising  his  head,  said 
to  her,  Woman,  where  are  they?  Did  no  one  sentence  thee? 
She  said,  No  one,  Master.  Then  Jesus  said  to  her,  Neither  do 
I  sentence  thee :  go  and  sin  no  more." 


IX. 

JOHN,  CHAP.  XXI.  24,  25. 

It  may  seem  that  the  words  with  which  John's  Gospel  now 
concludes  could  hardly  have  been  written  by  the  apostle.  He,  I 
conceive,  ended  his  Gospel  thus  :  — 

"  This  is  the  disciple  who  testifies  concerning  these  things,  and 
has  written  them." 

The  addition  follows  :  — 

["And  we  know  that  his  testimony  is  true.  And  there  are 
many  other  things  that  Jesus  did,  which,  if  they  were  severally 
written,  I  do  not  think  that  the  world  itself  would  contain  the 
books  written."] 

It  is  hardly  to  be  supposed,  that  the  apostle  would  say  of  him- 
self, *'  We  know  that  his  testimony  is  true,"  subjoining  immedi- 
ately after,  "  /do  not  think."  This  is  not  the  style  of  any  writer 
in  speaking  of  himself.  The  extravagant  hyperbole  in  the  second 
sentence,  also,  is  foreign  from  the  style  of  St,  John.  The  passage 
appears  to  be  an  editorial  note,  which,  written  probably  at  first 
a  little  separate  from  the  text,  became  incorporated  with  it  at  a 
very  early  period. 

According  to  ancient  accounts,  St.  John  wrote  his  Gospel  at 
Ephesus,  over  the  church  in  which  city  he  presided  during  the 
latter  part  of  his  long  life.  It  is  not  improbable,  that,  before  his 
death,  its  circulation  had  been  confined  to  the  members  of  that 
church.  Thence  copies  of  it  would  be  afterwards  obtained;  and 
the  copy  for  transcription  was,  we  may  suppose,  accompanied  by 
the  strong  attestation  which  we  now  find,  given  by  the  church,  or 


462  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

the  elders  of  tlie  churcli,  to  their  full  faith  in  the  accounts  which  it 
contained,  and  by  the  concluding  remark  made  by  the  writer 
of  this  attestation  in  his  own  person. 

There  is  no  external  authority,  properly  speaking,  for  rejecting 
this  passage.  In  one  manuscript,  the  last  verse  is  omitted ;  and, 
in  several  others,  it  is  said  to  have  been  thought  by  some  to  be  an 
addition.  The  character  of  the  language,  however,  is  different 
from  that  of  John.* 

I  have  thus  gone  through  with  all  the  passages  of  length  or 
importance,  in  the  Received  Text  of  the  Gospels,  the  genuineness 
of  which  appears  to  me  improbable.  It  is  obvious,  that,  should 
we  adopt  all  the  conclusions  proposed,  nothing  would  be  detracted 
from  the  value  of  the  Gospels.  On  the  contrary;  we  should,  I 
think,  only  remove  from  their  text  some  blemishes  and  discord- 
ances by  which  it  has  been  corrupted. 

*  The  use  of  baa  (trhatever),  as  equivalent  simply  to  the  relative  a 
(which,  that),  is  not  common,  and  does  not  occur  elsewhere  in  John.  It  was 
accordingly  changed  to  a  by  Origen,  Chrysostom,  and  Cyril;  and  a  is  sub- 
stituted for  it  in  the  Vatican  and  other  manuscripts.  It  is  such  a  use  of  oaog 
as  a  native  Greek  might  fall  into  from  meeting  with" its  frequent  occurrence 
in  the  New  Testament,  Avithout  appreciating  its  exact  force.  Kai?'  tv  is  no- 
where else  found  in  what  was  probably  wntten  by  the  apostle.  (It  occurs 
once  in  the  Apocalypse ;  and  elg  Ka^'  uq  is  a  various  reading  in  the  inter- 
polated passage  in  the  eighth  chapter  of  his  Gospel.)  It  is  here  used  illogi- 
cally,  its  proper  meaning  being  one  by  one,  severnlhj  ;  whereas  the  meaning 
intended  is  all.  Olfiac  (in  this  form)  occurs  nowhere  else  in  the  New  Testa- 
meat  or  Septuagint;  uor  is  any  form  of  olofiai  elsewhere  used  by  John. 


CORRESPONDENCES  OF  THE  GOSPELS.      463 


Note  B. 

(See  pp.  61,  94,  100.) 

ON  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  CORRESPONDENCES  AMONG  THE 
FIRST  THREE  GOSPELS. 


Section  I. 

Preliminary  Statement. 

The  remarkable  agreement  among  the  first  three  Gospels  has 
given  occasion  to  many  attempts  to  explain  its  origin.  ]iut  gen- 
erally, in  the  hypotheses  that  have  been  framed,  it  has  not  been 
sufficiently  kept  in  mind,  that  its  occurrence  Avith  so  much  that  is 
dissimilar  is  one  of  the  principal  phenomena  to  be  accounted  for ; 
and  that,  though  our  ultimate  purpose  be  to  solve  the  problem 
of  the  correspondences  among  those  Gospels,  it  must  embrace 
likewise  a  solution  of  their  diU'cicnces.  Together  with  this,  the 
appearances  to  be  explained  are  as  folloAvs  :  — 

jNIany  portions  of  the  history  of  Jesus  are  found  in  connnon  in 
the  first  three  Gospels ;  others  are  common  to  two  of  their  num- 
ber, but  not  found  in  the  third.  In  the  passages  referred  to,  there 
is  generally  a  similarity,  sometimes  a  very  great  similarity,  in  the 
selection  of  particular  circumstances,  in  the  aspect  under  Avhich  the 
event  is  viewed,  and  the  style  in  which  it  is  related.  Sonietimos, 
the  language  found  in  different  Gospels,  tlioiigh  not  identical,  is 
equivalent,  or  nearly  equivalent ;  and,  not  unfie(piently,  the  same 
series  of  words,  with  or  without  slight  variations,  occurs  through- 
out the  whole  or  a  great  part  of  a  sentence,  and  even  in  larger 
portions. 

The  occurrence  of  passages  verbally  the  same,  or  strikingly 
coincident  in  the  use  of  many  of  the  same  words,  — which  appear- 
ances I  sliall  denote  by  the  term  verbal  coincidence,  or  verbal 
agreement, — particularly  demands  attention.     In  maintaining  the 


464  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

hypothesis  that  the  evangelists  copied  from  common  documents, 
much  stress  has  been  laid  upon  it ;  but  its  importance,  as  a 
ground  of  argument  for  that  hypothesis,  disappears,  when  the 
subject  is  more  thoroughly  examined,  and  viewed  in  a  proper 
light.  By  far  the  larger  portion  of  this  verbal  agreement  is  found 
in  the  recital  of  the  words  of  others,  and  particularly  of  the  words 
of  Jesus.  Thus,  in  Matthew's  Gospel,  the  passages  verbally  coin- 
cident with  one  or  both  of  the  other  two  Gospels  amount  to  less 
than  a  sixth  part  of  its  contents  ;  and,  of  this,  about  seven-eighths 
occur  in  the  recital  of  the  words  of  others,  and  only  about  one- 
eighth  in  what,  by  way  of  distinction,  I  may  call  mere  narrative, 
in  which  the  evangelist,  speaking  in  his  own  person,  was  unre- 
strained in  the  choice  of  his  expressions.  In  Mark,  the  propor- 
tion of  coincident  passages  to  the  whole  contents  of  the  Gospel 
is  about  one-sixth,  of  which  not  one.-fifth  occurs  in  the  narrative. 
Luke  has  still  less  agreement  of  expression  with  the  other  evan- 
gelists. The  passages  in  which  it  is  found  amount  only  to  about 
a  tenth  part  of  his  Gospel ;  and  but  an  inconsiderable  portion  of 
it  appears  in  the  narrative,  in  which  there  are  very  few  instances 
of  its  existence  for  more  than  half  a  dozen  words  together.*  In 
the  narrative,  it  may  be  computed  as  less  than  a  twentieth  part. 

These  definite  proportions  are  important,  a's  showing  distinctly 
in  how  small  a  part  of  each  Gospel  there  is  any  verbal  coincidence 
with  either  of  the  other  two ;  and  to  how  great  a  degree  such 
coincidence  is  confined  to  passages  in  which  the  evangelists  pro- 
fessedly give  the  words  of  others,  particularly  of  Jesus. 

The  proportions  should,  however,  be  further  compared  with 
those  which  the  narrative  part  of  each  Gospel  bears  to  that  in 
which  the  words  of  others  are  professedly  repeated.  Matthew's 
narrative  occupies  about  one-fourth  of  his  Gospel,  Mark's  about 
one-half,  and  Luke's  about  one-third.  It  may  easily  be  com- 
puted, therefore,  that  the  proportion  of  verbal  coincidence  found 
in  the  narrative  part  of  each  Gospel,  compared  with  what  exists  in 
the  other  part,  is  about  in  the  following  ratios :  in  Matthew  as 
one  to  somewhat  more  than  two,  in  Mark  as  one  to  four,  and  in 
Luke  as  one  to  ten. 


*  The  most  remarkable  example  is  Luke  ix.  16,  where  Luke  coincides 
with  both  Matthew  and  Mark,  through  more  than  half  a  verse. 


CORRESPONDENCES  OF  THE  GOSPELS.      465 

As  a  preliminary,  then,  toward  accounting  for  the  agreement 
of  language  in  the  first  three  Gospels,  we  must  divide  each  of 
them  into  tv/o  portions ;  the  one  consisting  of  that  part  in  which 
the  evangelist  speaks  in  his  own  person,  and  the  other  of  words 
professedly  not  his  own.  Having  done  this,  it  appears  from  the 
statements  before  made,  that  the  same  cause  could  not  have 
operated  alone,  in  both  these  different  portions,  to  produce  coin- 
cidence of  language.  We  cannot  explain  this  phenomenon  by  the 
supposition,  that  the  Gospels  were  transcribed  either  one  from 
anolher,  or  all  from  common  documents ;  for,  if  such  transcrip- 
tion had  been  the  cause,  it  would  not  have  produced  results  so 
unequal  in  the  different  portions  into  which  the  Gospels  naturally 
divide  themselves. 

But,  in  regard  to  the  words  of  Jesus,  other  causes  were  in 
operation,  that  may  account  for  the  verbal  coincidences  among 
the  evangelists,  in  their  reports  of  what  he  said.  There  was,  in 
this  case,  an  invariable  archetype,  to  which  each  writer  would 
endeavor  to  conform  himself.  Events  may  be  correctly  rclatc(l 
in  many  forms  of  language  different  from  each  other.  Words 
can  be  repeated  with  accuracy  only  in  one  form.  But  each  of  the 
first  three  evangelists  intended  to  give  the  words  of  his  IVIaster 
as  they  were  uttered  by  him.  Nor  is  it  to  be  supposed,  that  the 
evangelist,  while  writing,  merely  recollected  those  words  as  having 
been  formerly  uttered  by  Jesus,  and  repeated  them  for  the  first 
time.  He  had  often,  without  doubt,  quoted  them  in  his  oral 
dls(.'0urses,  and  heard  them  quoted  by  his  fellow-preachers  of 
Christianity.  From  the  nature  of  the  case,  they  must,  many 
of  them,  have  become  formularies  in  which  the  doctrines  and 
precepts  of  our  religion  were  expressed.  The  agreement  of  the 
first  three  evangelists,  in  their  reports  of  the  words  of  Christ,  is 
no  greater  than  these  considerations  would  lead  us  to  antii-Ipate. 
There  is  no  ground  for  any  other  hypothesis  concerning  it. 

Some  of  the  same  considerations  will  explain  also  the  agree- 
ment of  the  evangelists,  so  far  as  it  exists,  in  their  reports  of 
the  words  spoken  by  others  beside  their  ]Master,  particularly  such 
as  were  connected  with  his  own,  as  leading  to  some  reply  or  re- 
mark from  him. 

There  is  another  case  in  which  the  first  three  evangelists  repeat 
the  words  of  others.     It  is  in  their  quotations  from  the  Old  Testa- 

80 


466  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

ment.  These  are  commonly  derived  from  the  Septuagint  version, 
•without  direct  reference  to  the  Hebrew  text.  Those  which  they 
have  in  common  all  appear  to  have  been  taken  from  that  version ; 
whether  they  are  found  in  our  Greek  translation  of  St.  Matthew's 
Gospel,  or  in  the  Greek  originals  of  Mark  and  Luke.  Now,  as' 
far  as  the  evangelists  verbally  agree  at  once  with  the  Septuagint 
and  each  other,  or  as  far  as  they  verbally  differ  from  each  other 
in  their  quotations,  no  explanation  is  required  as  regards  our 
present  purpose.  Neither  circumstance  can  prove  a  connection 
among  them  of  any  kind.  But  there  are  several  instances  in 
which  either  two  or  all  three  of  the  evangelists  agree  with  each 
other,  and  at  the  same  time  differ  from  our  present  copies  of  the 
Septuagint.  In  regard  to  this  fact,  it  is  to  be  observed,  that 
the  text  of  the  Septuagint  has,  from  various  causes,  undergone 
very  considerable  changes  ;  and  we  cannot  conclude,  that,  because 
a  reading  is  not  found  in  any  of  our  present  copies,  it  was  not 
extant  in  copies  in  the  time  of  the  evangelists.*  If  there  be 
cases,  as  I  believe  there  are,  in  which  two  or  all  of  the  evange- 
lists agree  in  a  reading,  not  only  varying  from  the  text  of  our 
present  copies,  but  from  that  of  the  copies  commonly  used  by 
them,  these  cases  may  be  explained  by  the  supposition,  that  the 
passage,  having  been  frequently  used  in  the-  oral  discourses  of 
the  apostles  and  their  companions,  had  undergone  a  change 
of  its  original  form.  This  change  may  have  been  accidental,  as 
verbal  accuracy  was   often   neglected  in  such  quotations ;   or  it 

*  Tliis  remark  may  be  illustrated  by  the  different  readings  of  two  of 
our  present  copies  in  a  passage  (Zech.  xiii.  7),  Avhich  Matthew  (xxvi.  31) 
and  Mark  (xiv.  27)  agree  verbally  in  quoting,  except  that  two  words  are 
added  by  Matthew.  As  given  by  them,  it  is  as  follows:  Uaru^cj  rbv 
TTOifxEva,  KOi  SiaoKopTTtadTjaeTac  tu  irpojSara  (Matthew  adds,  r^f  Tcoi/n'T]^). 
Tlie  reading  of  this  passage  in  the  Vatican  text  of  the  Septuagint  is, 
Jlaru^are  rov^  -nOLjiivaq,  koI  EKairucaTe  ra  TrpolSara.  Here  seems  a  gi'eat 
variation  in  the  evangelists;  but  the  Alexandrine  text  of  the  Septuagint  has 
these  words:  Uura^ov  tov  Troiiiiva,  Kai  diaaKopina6r/Gov7a.i  TuTrpu^aTa  ttjq 
■Koifj.V7jg.  Such  differences  of  reading  existing  in  our  present  copies  of  the 
Septuagint,  it  is  not  improbable  that  the  copies  extant  in  the  age  of  the 
evangelists  had  still  diflerent  readings,  to  which  the  quotations  in  the  Gos- 
pels may  have  been  conformed  in  some  of  the  examples  of  verbal  coincidence 
with  ea(;h  other  in  which  they  difter  from  all  existirg  manuscripts  of  the 
Septuagint. 


CORRESPONDENCES  OF  THE  GOSPELS.      4G7 

may  have  been  made  intentionally,  as  there  sometimes  appear 
to  be  reasons  for  it.  In  either  case,  it  would  be  the  form  of 
•words  with  which  the  evangelists  were  most  familiar. 

The  preceding  remarks  respecting  the  recital  of  the  language 
of  others  by  the  hrst  three  evangelists  will  hereafter  receive 
further  illustration.  I  make  them  in  this  phice,  that  they  may 
be  kept  in  view  during  our  examination  of  those  hyi)otheses, 
according  to  which  the  verbal  coincidences  and  other  corre- 
spondences among  the  first  three  evangelists  are  the  result  of 
their  having  copied  either  one  from  another,  or  all  from  connuon 
documents.  No  argument  for  either  supposition  can,  I  think,  be 
founded  upon  their  agreement  in  their  reports  or  citations  of  the 
words  of  others.  In  this  portion  of  their  Gospels,  the  amount 
of  verbal  coincidence  is  not  greater  than  what  the  causes  sug- 
gested might  lead  us  to  expect. 

There  is  another  consideration  to  be  attended  to,  respecting 
the  verbal  correspondence  of  the  first  three  Gospels.  Whether 
we  take  the  term  in  a  stricter  or  looser  sense,  as  denoting  either 
sameness,  or  great  resemblance,  or  equivalence  of  language,  this 
correspondence  does  not  lie  together  in  masses.  With  rare  ex- 
ceptions, it  does  not  extend  unbroken  through  passages  of  any 
considerable  length.  It  is  in  fragments,  scattered  here  and  there, 
and  interrupted  by  a  dissimilitude  of  ideas  and  language,  running 
through  far  the  greater  part  of  each  Gosi)el.  As  an  example  of 
this  intermixture  in  a  particular  passage,  we  may  take  the  account 
of  the  cure  of  the  paralytic  at  Capernaum.  As  the  verbal  corre- 
spondence of  the  evangelists  may  be  made  as  apparent  in  our 
own  language  as  in  the  original,  I  shall  in  this,  and  in  other 
similar  cases,  give  the  passages  quoted  in  a  translation.  The 
diversity  of  expression  cannot  always  be  efjually  well  represented : 
but  this  is  unimportant  as  regards  our  purpose. 

Matt.  ix.  1-8.                    'Mxwk  ii.  1-12.  Luke  v.  17-26. 
And,  soing  on  board            And     again,     after  And  it  happened  one 
the  boat,  he  passed  over      some  d-i ys,  he  entered  day,  that  lie  was  teat-h- 
and came   to  his  own      Capernaum;     and    the  ing:    and    th.-re     Avere 
city                                         news  spread  that  he  was  sitting  by  Pharisees  and 
in  his  house  there.  And  teaeliers    of   the    Law, 
immediately  many  were  who    had    come     fron: 


468 


ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 


Matt.  ix.  1-8. 


And  lo !  they  brought 
to  him  a  paralytic,  laid 
ou  a  bed. 


And  Jesus,  perceiv- 
ing their  faith,  said  to 
the  paralytic.  Take 
courage,  son:  thy  sins 
are  forgiven  thee. 

And,  behold!  some 
of  the  teachers  of  the 
Law  said  -within  them- 
selves. This  man  blas- 
phemes. 


And  Jesus,  perceiv- 
ing their  thoughts,  said, 
"WLy  are  ye  thinking 
evil  in  your  hearts  V  For 
■which  is  easier,  to  say, 
Thy  sins  are  forgiven, 
or  to  say,  Rise,  and 
walk  V  But  that  ye  may 
know  that  the  Son  of 
man  has  authority  on 


Makk  ii.  1-12. 
collected,  so  that  there 
•was  no  room  for  them 
even  before  the  door; 
and  he  taught  them  his 
doctrine. 

And  they  came  to 
him  bringing  a  paralj't- 
ic,  borne  by  four  men. 
And,  not  being  able  to 
get  near  him  on  account 
of  the  crowd,  they  re- 
moved a  part  of  the 
awning  over  where  he 
was,  and,  breaking 
through,  let  down  the 
bed  on  which  the  para- 
lytic was  lying. 

And  Jesus,  perceiv- 
ing their  faith,  said  to 
the  paralA'tic,  Son,  thy 
sins  are  forgiven. 

But  there  were  some 
of  the  teachers  of  the 
Law  sitting  there,  who 
said  in  their  hearts, 
How  is  it  that  this  man 
speaks  such  blasphe- 
mies? Who  can  for- 
give sins,  except  one, 
God? 

But  Jesus,  immedi- 
ately knowing  in  his 
mind  that  they  thus 
thought  within  them, 
said  to  them.  Why 
think  ye  thus  in  your 
hearts  ?  Which  is 
easier,  to  say  to  the 
paralytic.  Thy  sins  are 
forgiven,    or    to    say, 


Luke  v.  17-26. 
every  town  of  Galilee 
and  Judsea,  and  from 
Jerusalem  ;  and  the 
power  of  the  Lord  was 
displayed  in  the  healing 
of  the  sick. 

And  lo!  some  per- 
sons brought  on  a  bed 
a  man  who  was  a  para- 
lytic, and  were  desirous 
to  carry  him  in  and  lay 
him  before  Jesus.  And 
not  liiiding  any  Avay  to 
carry  him  in,  on  account 
of  the  crowd,  they  got 
on  the  house-top,  and 
lowered  him  down  from 
the  roof,  with  his  bed, 
into  the  midst  before 
Jesus. 

And  perceiving  their 
faith,  he  snid,  Man,  thy 
sins  are  forgiven  thee. 


And  the  teachers  of 
the  Law,  and  the  Phari- 
sees, began  to  say  in 
their  hearts,  Who  is 
this  man  who  speaks 
blasphemies?  Who  can 
forgive  sins  except  God 
alone  ? 

But  Jesus,  knowing 
their  thoughts,  said  to 
them,  AVhat  are  ye 
thinking  in  your  hearts  ? 
Which  is  easier,  t)  say, 
Thy  sins  are  forgiven, 
or  to  sa3%  Rise  and  walk  ? 
But  that  ye  may  know 
that  the  Son  of  man 
has  authority  on  earth 


CORRESPONDENCES  OF  THE  GOSPELS. 


4G9 


Matt.  ix.  1-8. 
earth  to  forgive  sins,  — 
then  he  says  to  the  par- 
alytic, Rise,  take  up  thy 
bed,*  and  go  to  thy 
house. 


And  he  rose  up, 


and  went  to  his  house. 


And  the  multitude 
•who  were  looking  on 
were  struck  Avith  aston- 
ishment, and  glorified 
God,  who  had  given 
such  power  to  men. 


Mai:k  ii.  1-12. 
Rise,  take  up  Ihy  bed, 
and  walk?  But  that 
ye  may  know  that  the 
Son  of  man  has  author- 
ity on  earth  to  forgive 
sins,  —  he  says  to  the 
paralytic,  I  say  to  thee, 
Rise,  take  up  thy  bed,* 
and  go  to  thy  house. 

And  he  rose  up  im- 
mediately, and,  taking 
up  his  bed,  he  went  out 
before  them  all ; 


so  that  they  were  all 
full  of  amazement,  and 
glorified  God,  saying, 
We  never  saw  the  like. 


Luke  v.  17-20. 
to  forgive  sins,  —  he  said 
to  the  piralytic,  I  say 
to  thee.  Rise,  and,  tak- 
ing up  thy  bed,*  go  to 
thy  house. 


And  directly  rising 
up  before  them,  and 
taking  up  what  he  was 
lying  upon,  he  went  to 
his  house  glorifying 
God. 

And  amazement 
seized  upon  all;  and 
they  glorified  God,  and 
were  filled  with  awe, 
saying,  AVe  have  seen 
wonderful  things  to- 
day. 


Thus,  in  other  passages,  in  which  there  is  a  verbal  correspond- 
ence among  the  evangelists,  it  sometimes  amounts  to  identity  of 
language,  though  very  rarely  through  a  whole  sentence,  where 
they  narrate  in  their  own  persons ;  sometimes  it  presents  various 
shades  of  resemblance,  but,  in  either  case,  is  almost  always  broken 
into  short  portions,  and  separated  by  matter  in  which  the  evange- 
lists diverge  from  each  other ;  sometimes  into  real  or  apparent 
discrepancies.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  no  theory  to  account 
for  the  agreement  of  the  first  three  Gospels,  one  with  another,  can 
be  satisfactory,  unless  it  afford,  likewise,  an  explanation  of  their 
want  of  agreement,  or,  in  other  words,  of  the  peculiar  circumstances 
under  which  their  correspondences  present  themselves. 

We  will  now  turn  to  another  fact  which  requires  our  attention, 
in  reference  to  the  agreement  and  disagreement  of  the  first  tliree 


*  The   three  evangelists  use   three  diflerent  terms  for  bed, 
K?iCVT];   Mark,  Kpu66aTog ;   and  Luke,  k?uvi6iov. 


Matthew, 


470  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

Gospels.  It  is,  that,  in  the  order  of  events  related  in  common  hy 
the  three  evangelists,  Mark  and  Luke  differ  from  Matthew,  and  coin- 
cide with  each  otlier,  particuhirly  in  three  remarkable  instances. 

In  the  first  of  them,  Matthew  (viii.  1-4)  represents  the  cure  of 
a  leper  as  having  been  performed  by  Christ  previously  to  his  being 
in  Capernaum  on  the  sabbath,  as  related  in  the  eighth  chapter  of 
his  Gospel ;  while  Mark  and  Luke  represent  what  is  obviously  the 
same  cure  as  having  been  performed  by  Christ  after  leaving  the  city.* 

Another  discrepance,  which  is  more  extraordinary,  is  as  fol- 
lows. According  to  Matthew,  Jesus,  in  the  evening  (as  appears) 
of  the  sabbath  (Saturday)  just  mentioned,  which  he  spent  at 
Capernaum,  left  the  city,  crossed  the  Lake  of  Galilee  in  a  boat 
with  his  disciples,  miraculously  stilled  a  tempest  which  befell 
them  on  their  course,  arrived  in  the  country  of  the  Gadarenes,  and 
there  restored  sanity  to  two  demoniacs,  returned  immediately 
after  to  Capernaum,  and  on  Monday  (as  appears)  cured  a  per- 
son afflicted  with  palsy,  called  Matthew  to  be  a  disciple,  was 
present  at  an  entertainment  (in  Matthew's  house,  as  we  learn 
from  Luke),  justified  his  disciples  for  not  fasting,  healed  a 
woman  with  an  issue  of  blood,  and  restored  the  daughter  of 
Jairus  to  life.f  On  the  other  hand,*  Mark  and  Luke  represent 
the  voyage  across  the  Lake  of  Galilee,  and  the  events  of  the 
two  days  following, — excepting  the  cure  of  the  paralytic,  the 
call  of  Matthew,  and  the  entertainment  at  his  house,  with  the  con- 
versation about  fasting  connected  with  it,|  —  as  having  taken  place 
at  a  later  period  of  Christ's  ministry,  after  the  discourse  in  which 
he  delivered  a  number  of  parables  near  the  shore  by  Capernaum.  § 
No  reason  can  be  assigned  why  Matthew  should  not  have  related 
all  the  events  mentioned  in  their  proper  order.  As  an  apostle,  he 
had  the  best  means  of  becoming  acquainted  with  the  time  and 
place  of  different  transactions.  Mark  and  Luke,  on  the  other 
hand,  were  not  apostles ;  and  in  Luke's  Gospel  there  are,  beside 
the  present,  many  clear  indications  that  he  had  but  an  imperfect 


*  Mark  i.  40-45.     Luke  v.  12-15.  f  Matt.  viii.  16— ix.  26. 

J  To  these  events  they  may  be  considered  as  assigning  tlie  same  period 
with  St.  Matthew,  though  with  less  definiteness.  See  Mark  ii.  1-22;  Luke 
V.  17-39. 

§  Mark  iv.  35— v.  -43.     Luke  viii.  22-56. 


CORRESPONDENCES   OF   THE   GOSPEt.S.  471 

knowledge  of  the  succession  of  events,  and  -was  often  uninformed 
of  the  particular  place  where  they  occurred.* 

There  is,  further,  what  seems  a  decisive  reason   for  be  licvin"- 


*  Thus,  tlie  cure  of  the  leper,  mentioned  nbove,  is  represented  by  Matthew 
(viii.  1-5)  as  havin<?  been  performed  just  before  our  Saviour  entere<l  Caper- 
naum; but  the  indefiniteness  of  Luke's  information  rcspoctinff  the  place  of 
its  performance  appears  in  the  manner  in  which  he  introduces  tlie  account 
(v.  12),  —  "And  when  he  was  in  a  certain  city,  behold!  a  man  full  of  lepro- 
sy." The  cure  of  the  paralytic,,  likewise  mentioned  above,  we  learn  both 
from  Matthew  (ix.  1)  and  Mark  (ii.  1)  was  wrouf^ht  at  Capernaum;  wiiile 
Luke  (v.  16,  17),  after  sayin.c:,  that  Jesus  withdrew  to  solitary  places  to-pray, 
immediately  proceeds,  without  note  of  time  or  place,  to  introduce  the  narra- 
tive thus:  "And  it  happened  one  day."  So  the  voya^^'  across  the  Lake  of 
Galilee  to  the  country  of  the  Gadarenes  is  related  by  Matthew  f viii.  16,  18) 
as  having  commenced  on  the  evening  of  the  sabbath  when  Jesus  first  pub- 
h'cly  appeared  at  Capernaum,  and  by  Mark  (iv.  35)  is  referred  (I  suppose 
erroneoush')  to  the  evening  of  the  day  when  Jesus  preached  in  paraliles; 
but  Luke  (viii.  22)  again  commences  this  narrative  in  the  same  manner  a3 
the  last  mentioned,  —  "  And  it  happened  one  day." 

The  Avant  of  chronological  order  in  Luke's  Gospel  is  a  point  of  some 
importance.  It  is  evident,  I  think,  in  the  case  remarked  upon  in  the  text; 
but  it  may  be  worth  while  to  add  a  few  more  instances. 

L  Matthew  (iv  18-20)  and  Mark  (i.  16-18)  relate,  that  Peter  was  called 
to  be  a  disciple  before  the  public  appearance  of  Jesus  at  Capernaum;  and 
that  Jesus,  when  at  Capernaum,  proceeded  from  the  s'/nagogue  to  Peter's 
house,  where  he  cured  his  wife's  mother  of  a  fever.  Luke,  who  mentions 
the  last  events,  represents  the  call  of  Peter  as  taking  place  subsequently, 
when  Jesus  had  left  Capernaum;  and  describes  Peter  as  struck  with  con- 
sternation at  a  miracle  then  performed  by  our  Saviour  (v.  1-11). 

IL  It  is,  I  think,  likewise  evident,  that  Luke  confounded  the  discourse 
called  the  Sermon  on  the  INIount,  which  Jesus,  as  related  by  Matthew,  deliv- 
ered before  his  public  appearance  in  Capernaum,  witli  that  which  he  ad- 
dressed to  his  apostles  immediately  after  their  appointment  (>Latt.  chap.  x). 
Luke  (vi.  12-49)  represents  our  Saviour  upon  this  occasion,  not  as  giving  to 
his  newly  appointed  apostles  the  appropriate  directions  referring  to  their 
peculiar  duties,  which  according  to  INIatthew,  himself  an  apostle,  he  actually 
did,  but  as  delivering  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount;  at  the  close  of  which  he 
relates,  that  Jesus  entered  Capernaum,  and  cured  the  servant  of  a  centurion. 
To  the  last  events,  ^latthew  assigns  the  same  relative  order  in  reference  to 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  By  Luke,  the  whole  appears  to  have  been  intro- 
duced out  of  its  proper  place. 

III.  Passing  over  other  examples,  of  less  importance,  or  which  cannot 
be  explained  in  so  few  words.  I  will  adduce  but  one  more. 


472  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

that  Matthew  has  not  misplaced  the  particular  events  in  question. 
According  to  his  narrative,  it  appears  that  they  all  took  place 
during  three  days,  on  the  last  of  which  he  Avas  called  to  be  a 


In  the  ninth  chapter  of  his  Gospel  (ver.  51,  52),  Luke  says,  "But,  when 
the  time  Avas  near  for  his  being  received  into  heaven,  he  set  his  face  steadil}-- 
to  go  to  Jerusalem ;  and  sent  messengers  before  him,  who  went  into  a  village 
of  Samaritans  to  prepare  for  him."  The  journey,  the  commencement  of 
which  is  here  mentioned,  probably  occurred  some  months  before  our  Saviour's 
crucifixion.  It  was,  as  I  suppose,  when  he  was  going  up  to  the  Feast  of 
Tabernacles,  mentioned  in  the  seventh  chapter  of  John's  Gospel.  But  the 
language  of  Luke  implies  that  it  was  his  last  journey  to  Jerusalem,  and  is 
therefore  inconsistent  with  the  supposition  of  any  subsequent  return  to 
Galilee.  In  the  tenth  chapter  (vei*.  38),  we  tind  Jesus  arrived  at  Bethany  (a 
certain  town  Luke  says,  without  giving  the  name),  the  residenoc  of  Martha 
and  Mar}',  a  short  distance  onl\'  from  Jerusalem.  But,  in  the  eleventh 
chapter  (ver.  14-23),  Luke  relates  the  cure  of  a  demoniac,  and  the  reply  of 
Jesus  to  the  charge  that  he  cast  out  demons  by  the  power  of  Beelzebub, 
which,  according  to  both  Matthew  and  Mark,  occurred  in  Galilee.  In  the 
thirteentli  chapter  (ver.  22),  Ave  are  told,  that  Jesus  "went  through  the  cities 
and  villages,  teaching,  on  his  way  to  Jerusalem;  "  but,  in  the  same  chapter 
(ver.  31,  32),  we  find  him  still  in  the  dominions  of  Herod,  probably  in 
Pera?a;  for  the  Pharisees  are  represented  as  telling  him,  for  the  purpose  of 
inducing  him  to  leave  the  country,  that  Herod,  its  juler,  was  desirous 
of  destroying  him;  while  again,  in  the  seventeenth  chapter  (ver.  11),  Luke 
speaks  of  him  as  on  his  way  to  Jerusalem,  "  passing  along  the  confines  of 
Samaria  and  Galilee,"  which  implies  that  he  was  journeying  from  Galilee. 

Throughout  far  the  greater  part  of  Luke's  Gospel,  and  in  regard  to  all 
but  a  few  leading  events  in  Christ's  history,  there  seems  to  me  a  want  of 
chronological  order. 

I  may  here  add,  that  it  is  far  from  being  the  fact,  as  might  be  supposed 
from  some  of  the  statements  on  the  subject,  that,  Avhere  Mark  or  Luke  differ 
from  the  arrangement  of  Matthew  in  the  matter  common  to  all  three,  tiiey 
uniformly  agree  with  each  other.  Two  examples  to  the  contrary  have  been 
given  in  this  note:  one,  in  the  call  of  Peter;  and  the  other,  in  the  reply  of 
Jesus  to  the  charge,  that  he  cast  out  demons  by  the  power  of  Beelzebub 
(Matt.  xii.  22-37;  Mark  iii.  11,  23-30;  Luke  xi.  14-23).  In  the  account, 
likewise,  of  the  preaching  of  Jesus  at  Nazareth  (Matt.  xiii.  54-58;  Mark 
vi.  1-6;  Luke  iv.  16-30),  and  in  the  account  of  the  attempt  of  his  mother 
and  relations  to  obtain  access  to  him  while  he  was  teaching  the  people 
(Matt.  xii.  46-50;  Mark  iii.  31-35;  Luke  viii.  19-21),  Luke  diflcrs  from  the 
arrangement  of  Matthew,  while  Mark  coincide^  with  it.  The  only  important 
instances  of  the  agreement  of  Mark  and  Luke,  in  deviating  from  the  order 
of  Matthew,  are  mentioned  in  the  text. 


CORRESPONDENCES  OF  THE  GOSPELS.      473 

disciple.  The  miraculous  cure  of  Jairus's  (laughter  he  relates  as 
immediately  followiug  the  entertainment  at  his  own  house,  Hut  it 
is  impossible  that  his  memory  should  have  deceived  him  respecting 
tlie  time  -when  such  events  occurred ;  and  that  he  should  have 
imagined  them  to  have  been  in  so  close  connection  with  the  most 
important  incident  in  his  own  life,  if  they  had  not  taken  jjlaee  till 
a  later  period  of  Christ's  ministry.  The  agreement,  therefore, 
between  Mark  and  Luke  cannot  be  explained  by  the  supposi- 
tion, that  they  observed  the  order  of  time,  and  that  Matthew  did 
not ;  nor  can  it  well  be  regarded  as  a  mere  accident,  consequent 
solely  upon  their  both  being  ignorant  of  the  real  succession  of 
events. 

Beside  the  two  already  mentioned,  there  is  another  instance  in 
which  Mark  and  Luke  differ  in  conmion  from  the  order  of  ^lat- 
thew.  They  place  the  accounts  of  his  disciples  passing  through  a 
field  of  grain  on  the  sabbath,  and  of  his  curing  on  the  sal)bath,  in 
a  synagogue,  a  man  with  a  withered  hand,  before  the  appointment 
of  the  apostles  ;  while  Matthew  refers  both  events  to  a  subseciuent 
period. 

Among  the  phenomena  of  agreement  and  disagreement  in  the 
Gospels,  the  consent  of  Mark  and  Luke  in  differing  from  the 
arrangement  of  Matthew  is,  perhaps,  most  diflicult  of  explanation  ; 
but  it  may  serve  as  a  test  of  the  probability  of  some  of  the 
hypotheses  which  have  been  formed  to  account  for  those  phe- 
nomena. 

As  regards  any  hypothesis  intended  for  this  purpose,  beside 
accounting  for  those  phenomena,  there  a.re  other  conditions  which 
it  must  fulfil.  It  must  be  consistent  with  the  historical  facts 
relating  to  the  early  history  of  the  Gospels,  and  with  the  intrinsic 
probabilities  respecting  their  composition.  Tt  must  correspond  to 
the  habits  of  the  age,  and  particularly  to  those  of  the  Jews  of 
Palestine.  If  we  regard  the  Gospels  as  genuine,  it  must  accord 
with  the  character  and  circumstances  of  the  first  three  evangelists, 
and,  in  any  case,  with  the  general  character  of  the  works  them- 
selves. It  must  explain  the  phenomena,  which  constitute  the 
problem  to  be  solved,  consistently  with  all  the  other  phenomena 
which  the  Gospels  present.  These  works,  for  instance,  show  that 
their  authors,  whoever  they  were,  had  no  habits  of  htcrary  compo- 


474  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

sition,  tliat  they  were  imaccustomed  to  commit  events  to  writing; 
and  whatever  supposition  we  may  make  should  be  consistent  with 
this  obvious  fact.  And,  lastly,  any  hypothesis,  to  be  admissible, 
must  assign  a  reasonable  motive  for  what  it  represents  the  authors 
of  the  Gospels  to  have  done ;  or,  to  express  the  same  thing  in 
other  words,  must  not  represent  them  as  acting  in  a  manner  un- 
reasonable and  unaccountable. 

In  treating  of  the  hj-potheses  to  be  examined,  I  shall  use  lan- 
guage conformed  to  the  belief  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels. 
I  have  already  endeavored  to  show,  that  no  hypothesis  for  ex- 
plaining their  correspondences  is  tenable  upon  a  contrary  supposi- 
tion ;  *  nor  has  it  been  common  to  maintain  any  such  hypothesis 
in  connection  with  an  explicit  denial  of  their  genuineness.  I, 
however,  adopt  the  language  in  question,  principally  for  the  sake 
of  convenience  and  perspicuity, — to  avoid  that  embarrassment 
and  difFuseness  of  expression  which  would  arise  from  an  attempt 
to  present  the  problem  to  be  solved,  in  its  most  general  and  indefi- 
nite form.  INlany,  though  not  all,  of  the  arguments  I  shall  adduce 
respecting  the  first  two  hypotheses  examined  are  equally  applica- 
ble, whoever  may  be  considered  as  the  authors  of  the  Gospels ; 
so  that  they  would  lose  none  of  their  force,  if -the  names  of  those 
authors  were  denoted  by  algebraic  symbols,  carrying  no  associa- 
tions with  them.  The  hypothesis  I  shall  defend  supposes  that  the 
Gospels  have  been  ascribed  to  their  true  authors  ;  and,  if  it  afford 
the  only  satisfactory  solution  of  their  correspondences,  must  af- 
ford, at  the  time,  additional  proof  of  that  fact.  But  I  do  not,  it 
is  to  be  observed,  found  the  present  inquiry  upon  the  conclusion 
which  I  have  before  endeavored  to  establish,  that  no  hypothesis 
can  explain  the  correspondence  of  the  Gospels,  except  upon  the 
supposition  that  they  were  written  in  the  apostolic  age,  or,  what  is 
equivalent,  the  supposition  of  their  genuineness:  on  the  contrary, 
I  trust  that  this  conclusion  will  receive  new  confirmation  froi» 
what  follows. 

With  these  views  of  the  nature  of  the  facts  to  be  explained,  of 
the  conditions  required  in  their  explanation,  and  of  the  form  in 

*  See  before,  p.  93,  seqq. 


CORRESPONDENCES  OF  THE  GOSPELS.      475 

whicli  the  inquiry  may  most  conveniently  be  pursued,  we  will  now 
proceed  to  consider  the  diiFcrent  theories  that  have  been  proposed 
to  account  for  the  agreement  of  the  first  three  Gospels. 


Section  II. 

On  tlie  Supposition  that  Two  of  the  Evangelists  copied.  One  from 
his  Predecessor,  and  the  Other  from  Both  his  Predecessors. 

The  most  obvious  solution  of  the  phenomenon  in  question, 
•which  has  formerly  been  very  generally  adopted,  is  that  the  evan- 
gelists copied  one  from  another.  In  maintaining  this  hypothesis, 
we  must  suppose  that  the  latest  copied  from  the  two  preceding, 
and  the  second  in  order  of  time  from  his  predecessor ;  since  there 
are  agreements  between  any  two  of  the  three  Gospels  for  wiiich  it 
will  not  otherwise  account.  To  determine  whetiier  tiiis  hypothesis 
be  tenable,  we  will  consider  a  particular  form  of  it,  which  is  as 
plausible  as  any  other.  It  is  the  supposition,  that  Luke  copied 
from  Matthew,  and  Mark  from  both  Matthew  and  Luke. 

T.  Now  the  first  consideration  is,  that,  when  we  ascribe  to  an 
individual  an  action  of  Avhich  we  have  no  direct  proof,  we  must 
assign  some  probal)le  motive  for  the  action ;  and  there  appt/hrs  no 
reasonable  inducement  for  Mark  to  have  formed  such  a  Gospel  as 
his  own  from  those  of  Matthew  and  Luke.  He  could  not  have  so 
deceived  himself  as  to  suppose,  that  he  was  writing  what,  to  any 
class  of  men,  would  be  a  more  valuable  history  of  Christ  than 
either  of  theirs.  He  could  not  suppose,  that  it  would  supply  the 
place,  or  supersede  the  use,  of  either.  He  could  not  have  written 
his  Gospel  for  the  sake  of  the  small  additions  which  he  has  made 
of  original  matter;  for  they  are  so  small  in  amount  as  to  render 
the  supposition  incredible.  Had  it  been  his  object  to  give  supple- 
mentary matter,  he  might,  without  doubt,  have  collected  much 
more ;  and,  with  this  purpose,  he  would  not,  as  he  has  done,  have 
repeated  passages  which,  if  he  copied,  he  has  only  abridged. 

It  may  perhaps  be  suggested,  that  he  intended  to  make  a 
Gospel  which,  being  more  brief  than  the  other  two,  might  bo 
transcribed  at  less  expense,  and  read  in  a  shorter  time ;  and  which 
would  therefore  circulate  more  widely.     But  this  notion,  derived 


476  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

from  the  booksellers'  trade  of  modern  days,  is  not  to  be  transferred 
to  the  times  of  the  ancient  Christians.  Among  their  other  sacri- 
fices, they  would  not  have  reckoned  that  of  a  few  denarii,  if  given 
as  the  extra  cost  of  a  more  complete  Gospel ;  nor  would  they  have 
been  unwilling  to  spare  the  additional  half-hour  required  for  its 
reading. 

II.  If  we  suppose  Mark  and  Luke  to  have  copied  from  Mat- 
thew, there  are  discrepances  between  them  and  Matthew  for  which 
•we  cannot  account.  The  simple  fact,  indeed,  that  there  are  dis- 
crepances between  two  evangelists,  does  not  prove  that  one  may 
not  have  copied  the  other ;  for  the  later  writer  may  have  intended 
to  correct  the  mistakes  of  his  predecessor.  But  the  discrepances 
may  be  of  such  a  kind  as  to  render  this  supposition  improbable  or 
incredible.  Thus,  Matthew  relates,  that  two  demoniacs  among  the 
Gadarenes  were  restored  to  sanity  by  Jesus,  and  that  he  gave 
sight  to  two  blind  men  near  Jericho ;  while  Mark  and  Luke,  in 
each  case,  mention  only  one.  The  difference  is  of  no  importance, 
considering  them  all  as  independent  historians ;  but  it  is  highly 
improbable,  that  Matthew  would  have  spoken  of  two,  if  there  had 
been  only  one,  or  that  Mark  and  Luke  would  have  varied  from  his 
account  in  this  particular,  had  they  been  acquainted  with  it.  In 
the  narrative  of  another  fact,  the  withering  of  the  barren  fig-tree, 
Matthew  represents  it  as  the  immediate  consequence  of  the  words 
of  Jesus,  as  taking  place  as  soon  as  they  were  uttered ;  and  the 
astonishment  and  awe  felt  by  the  disciples  appear  in  his  account 
as  expressed  at  the  moment:  "And  the  disciples,  seeing  it,  were 
struck  with  awe,  and  said,  How  suddenly  this  fig-tree  has  with- 
ered !  "  *  It  may  seem,  at  first  view,  difficult  to  account  for  the 
emotion  of  the  disciples,  after  all  the  other  astonishing  miracles 
which  they  had  witnessed.  But  we  may  understand  it,  when  we 
consider  the  striking  visible  phenomenon  presented,  so  different 
from  any  which  Jesus  had  before  effected,  its  startling  suddenness, 
and  the  peculiar  character  of  the  miracle,  unlike  his  former  works 
of  mercy,  a  symbolical  act,  a  visible  parable,  as  it  were,  intended 
to  indicate  the  punishment  about  to  fall  upon  the  great  body  of 
the  Jews,  to  whom  Jesus  had  "come  seeking  fruit,  and  had  found 

*  See  Matt.  xxi.  18,  seqq. 


CORRESPONDENCES  OF  THE  GOSPELS.      477 

iion«."  *  The  account  of  Matthew  is  consistent  and  prol)al)le. 
But  Mark  f  represents  the  words  of  our  Saviour  as  having;  bci'u 
uttered  on  one  morning,  and  the  ellect  of  them  upon  the  I'v^-in-n 
as  having  been  first  observed  by  his  disciples  the  following  mtn-n- 
ing;  when  Peter  ''remembered,  and  said  to  him,  Master,  behold! 
this  fig-tree  which  thou  didst  curse  has  withered."  That  the  dis- 
ciples remarked  upon  the  event,  not  only  when  it  occurred,  but 
also  as  they  were  passing  the  tree  the  following  morning,  is  not 
improbable;  and  it  may  have  been  on  the  following  morning,  like- 
wise, and  not  immediately  after  the  occurrence  of  the  event,  that 
our  Saviour  announced  to  them  those  miraculous  powers,  which, 
if  they  had  faith,  would  be  granted  to  them,  as  recorded  both  by 
Matthew  and  Mark.  We  may  thus  account  for  the  manner  in 
which  Mark  has  represented  the  transaction.  But  there  can  be 
little  doubt,  that  the  astonishment  of  the  disciples  was  expressed 
du-ectly  after  the  occurrence  of  the  miracle ;  nor  can  we  sup))ose, 
that  Mark,  with  the  account  of  Matthew  before  him,  would  have 
given  such  a  one  as  appears  in  his  Gospel. 

The  differences  of  narration,  of  which  these  are  specimens, 
afford  proof,  that  neither  Mark  nor  Luke  copied  from  Matthew. 
But  the  most  striking  discrepances  between  the  evangelists  regard 
the  chronological  order  of  events.  The  voyage,  before  mentioned, 
across  the  Lake  of  Galilee  to  the  country  of  the  Gadarenes,  with 
certain  facts  connected  with  and  following  it,  is,  as  we  have  seen, 
clearly  referred  by  Matthew  to  a  particular  period  of  Christ^s  min- 
istry ;  nor  can  there,  I  think,  be  a  reasonable  doubt,  that  he  has 
assigned*  to  those  events  their  true  place.J  On  the  contrary, 
Mark  explicitly  and  circumstantially  states  them  as  having  oc- 
curred at  a  different  time.  After  relating  that  Jesus  taught  by 
the  sea-side  in  parables,  he  proceeds :  "And  the  same  day,  in  the 
evening,  he  said  to  his  disciples,  Let  us  cross  to  the  other  side  ;  "  § 
and  then  follows  an  account  of  the  voyage.  Now,  if  Matthew's 
order  be  correct,  as  we  believe,  Mark  could  have  no  good  reason 
for  differing  from  it ;  nor  would  he  have  differed  from  it,  had  he, 


*  See  the  parable  of  the  barren  fig-tree  (Luke  xiii.  6-9),  which  is  to  ba 
considered  as  explanatory  of  this  miracle, 
t  Chap.  xi.  12-14,  20,  seqq. 
X  See  before,  p.  471,  seqq.  §  Mark  ir.  35. 


478  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

as  has  been  supposed,  taken  Matthew's  Gospel  as  his  main  guide 
in  the  composition  of  his  own. 

SimiUir  reasoning  is  equally  conclusive  against  the  supposition, 
th^  Luke  transcribed  from  Matthew's  Gospel.  Being  evidently- 
unacquainted  with  the  chronological  order  of  many  events,  and 
the  place  of  their  occurrence,  if  he  had  borrowed  any  assistance 
from  Matthew,  he  would  have  taken  him  for  a  guide  in  those 
respects. 

m.  Mark's  Gospel,  though  but  about  three-fifths  of  the  size  of 
either  of  the  other  two  Gospels,  has  in  no  other  respect  the  char- 
acter of  an  abridgment  or  a  selection  from  them.  On  the  suppo- 
sition, that  he  formed  his  Gospel  out  of  the  other  two,  there  is  no 
principle  of  selection  which  can  reasonably  be  ascribed  to  him. 
A  characteristic  distinction  between  Mark  and  the  other  two  evan- 
gelists is,  that  he  gives  comparatively  but  few  of  the  declarations 
and  precepts  of  Jesus,  and  his  Gospel  is  more  a  simple  narrative 
of  actions  and  events.  Now,  this  may  be  explained,  if  we  suppose 
Mark  to  have  written  his  Gospel  with  a  limited  view,  for  the  use 
of  individuals  already  instructed  in  Christianity,  on  whose  minds 
the  words  of  Christ  had  been  deeply  impressed  by  oral  teaching, 
and  to  Avhom,  therefore,  only  the  framework  of  his  history  was 
necessary  in  order  to  enable  them  to  define  and  arrange  their 
recollections  ;  but,  if  Ave  believe  Mark  to  have  been  familiar  with 
the  other  two  Gospels,  we  cannot  imagine  him  to  have  believed 
another  history  necessary  for  such  a  purpose.  He  must  have 
written  his  own  with  a  view  more  prospective ;  and,  this  being 
supposed,  it  is  not  credible  that  he  should  have  thought  it  advi- 
sable to  omit  a  large  portion  of  the  words  of  our  Saviour,  and 
many  striking  incidents  in  his  life,  which,  being  in  the  books 
before  him,  it  would  have  cost  him  only  the  labor  of  transcription 
to  preserve  in  his  own.  As  I  have  said,  no  rational  principle 
of  selection  can  be  assigned  to  account  for  what  he  has  taken, 
and  what  he  has  omitted.  Should  it  be  said,  that  he  thought 
the  other  Gospels  would  go  down  to  posterity  together  with  his 
own,  the  question  recurs,  What  Avas  his  purpose  in  writing.^ 
Why  did  he  undertake  this  labor,  evidently  foreign  from  his  habits 
of  mind  ? 


CORRESPONDENCES  OF  THE  GOSPELS. 


479 


rV.  Let  us  view  the  subject  under  another  aspect.  To  tlie 
accounts  which  Mark  gives  in  common  with  the  other  evan'^'i-lists, 
be  often  adds  partlcuhir  circumstances  not  narrated  by  them. 
But  he  who  is  acquainted  with  the  minor  particuhirs  of  an  event 
is,  of  course,  well  acquainted  with  its  jnincipal  features.  Js^ow, 
the  knowledge  of  those  particulars  which  he  has  added  not  beiu"- 
derived  by  him  from  the  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  it  Ibllows 
that  he  was  not  dependent  upon  those  Gospels  for  a  knowledge  of 
the  main  fact  itself.  Sometimes  INIark  varies  in  his  accounts  from 
one  or  both  of  the  other  evangelists.  There  is  a  discrepance 
between  them.  If  he  used  their  Gospels,  he  would  thus  have 
varied  from  them  only  for  the  purpose  of  giving  what  he  believed 
a  more  accurate  account  than  they  had  done.  In  all  such  cases  as 
have  been  mentioned,  it  is  clear  that  Mark,  believing  himself  to  be 
fully  and  correctly  possessed  of  the  facts,  nn'ght  have  written  as  he 
has  done  Avithout  any  knowledge  of  the  other  two  evangelists. 
When,  with  the  differences  that  have  been  mentioned,  there  is  a 
striking  difference  of  language  likewise,  it  becomes  apparent,  that 
Mark,  in  such  passages,  made  no  use  of  his  supposed  })redecessors. 
Of  passages  of  this  kind,  I  will  give  one  as  an  example,  placing  in 
parallel  columns  an  English  version  of  the  text  of  the  three  evan- 
gelists, as  their  difference  of  language  may  be  suflicieiitly  rej^re- 
sented  in  a  translation.  The  passage  is  an  account  of  the  curing 
of  the  demoniac  boy,  immediately  after  our  Saviour's  transfigura- 
tion. 


Matt.  xvii.  14-21. 

And,  when  they  came 
to  the  multitude, 


Makk  ix.  14-29. 

And,  when  he  came 
to  his  disciple-^,  he  saw 
a  great  nuihitude  about 
them,  and  the  teachers 
of  the  Law  disputing 
with  them.  And  im- 
mediately tlie  whole 
multitude,  upon  seeing 
him,  was  struck  with 
awe,  and,  running  to- 
wards him,  saluted 
him.  And  he  asked 
them,  What  are  ye  dis- 
puting about  together? 


Luke  ix,  37-43. 

And,  on  the  follow- 
ing day,  as  they  were 
descending  the  'roun- 
tain,  a  great  mU'»tude 
met  him. 


480 


ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 


Matt.  xvii.  14-21. 
a  man  met  him;  and, 
falling  on  his  knees  be- 
fore him,  said,  Master, 
have  pity  on  my  son, 
for  he  is  a  lunatic,  and 
suffers  grievously;  for 
he  often  falls  into  the 
fire,  and  often  into  the 
water; 


and  I  brought  him  to 
thy  disciples,  and  they 
could  not  heal  him. 
Then  Jesus  said,  Un- 
believing and  perverse 
race !  how  long  shall  I 
be  with  you  ?  how  long 
must  I  bear  with  you  V 
Bring  him  hither  to  me. 


Makk  ix.  14-29. 

And  one  of  the 
multitude  answered, 
Teacher,  I  brought  my 
son  to  thee,  who  has  a 
dumb  spirit;  and,  when 
it  seizes  him,  it  throws 
him  down,  and  he  foams 
at  his  mouth,  and 
gnashes  his  teeth,  and 
becomes  insensible;* 


and  I  spoke  to  thy  dis- 
ciples to  cast  it  out, 
and  they  were  not 
able.  Then  Jesus  said 
to  them.  Unbelieving 
race !  how  long  shall  I 
be  with  you  ?  how  long 
must  I  bear  with  you? 
Bring  him  to  me. 

And  they  brought 
him  to  him;  and,  as 
soon  as  he  saw  Jesus, 
the  spirit  convulsed 
him ;  and,  falling  down, 
he  rolled  upon  the 
ground,  foaming  at  his 
mouth.  And  Jesus 
questioned  his  father, 
How  long  has  it  been 
thus  with  him?  And 
he  answered.  From  a 
child.  And  often  it 
casts  him  into  the  fire 
and  into  water,  to  de- 
stroy him.  But,  if  thou 
canst  do  any  thing, 
have  pity  upon  us,  and 


Luke  ix.  37-43. 

And,  behold!  a  man 
from  the  multitude  cried 
out,  saying.  Teacher.  I 
beseech  thee  to  look 
upon  my  son;  for  he  is 
my  only  child  ;  and, 
behold!  a  spirit  seizes 
him,  and  utters  a  sud- 
den cry,  and  convulses 
him  so  that  he  foams  at 
his  mouth,  and  hardly 
departs  from  him,  leav- 
ing him  utterly  ex- 
hausted ;  and  I  besought 
thy  disciples  to  cast  it 
out,  and  they  could  not. 
Then  Jesus  said.  Un- 
believing and  perverse 
race !  how  long  shall  I 
be  with  you,  and  bear 
with  you?  Lead  thy 
son  hither. 

And,  while  he  was 
coming,  the  demon 
threw  him  down,  and 
convulsed  him. 


*  Kal  ^TjpalvETat.    It  is  impossible  to  determine  in  what  sense  Mark 
uses  this  term.    Perhaps  it  should  be  rendered,  *'  and  is  wasting  away.^* 


CORRESPONDENCES  OF  THE  GOSPELS. 


481 


Matt.  xvii.  U-21. 


And  Jesus  rebuked 
the  demon,  so  tliat  it 
came  out  of  him ;  and 
the  boy  was  well  from 
that  hour. 


Then  the  disciples 
came  to  Jesus  apart, 
and  said,  Why  could 
we  not  cast  it  oat?  And 
Jesus  said  to  them, 
Through  your  want  of 
faith;  for  I  tell  you  in 
truth,  had  ye  faith  as  a 
grain  of  mustard-seed, 
should  you  say  to  this 
mountain,  Remove  from 
this  place  to  that,  it 
would     remove  ;    and 


Mark  ix.  14-29. 
help  us.  Then  Jesus 
said  to  him,  What 
means  this,  '  If  thou 
canst'?  All  things 
may  be  done  for  iiini 
who  has  faith.  And 
immediately  the  father 
of  the  child,  crying 
out  with  tears,  said,  I 
have  faith:  help  thou 
my  want  of  faith.  Then 
Jesus,  seeing  that  the 
multitude  was  running 
together  to  the  spot,  re- 
buked the  unclean  spir- 
it, saying  to  it,  Thou 
dumb  and  deaf  spirit, 
I  command  thee,  come 
out  of  him,  and  enter 
him  no  more.  And 
uttering  a-cry,  and  con- 
vulsing him  much,  it 
came  out  of  hini.  And 
he  was  as  if  dead,  so 
that  many  said.  He  is 
dead;  but  Jesus,  taking 
him  by  the  hand,  raised 
him,  and  he  stood  up. 


And,  after  he  had 
entered  a  house,  his 
disciples  asked  him, 
privately,  Why  could 
we  not  cast  it  out? 
And  he  said  to  them, 


Luke  ix.  37-43. 


But  Jesus  rebuked 
the  unclean  spirit,  and 
healed  the  child,  and 
delivered  him  to  his 
father. 


And  all  were  aston- 
ished at  this  display  of 
the  power  of  God. 


81 


482  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

Matt.  xvii.  14-21.  Mark  ix.  14-29,  Luke  ix.  37-43. 

nothing  would  be  im- 
possible to  you.    But  it  By  nothing  but  prayer 
is  only  through  prayer  and    fasting    can    this 
and   fasting   that   this  race  be  cast  out. 
race  may  be  expelled. 

In  this  passage,  as  in  others,  it  is  clear,  not  merely  that  Mark 
did  not  copy  Matthew  or  Luke,  but  that  no  one  of  the  evangelists 
copied  either  of  the  other  two.  This  is  not  a  matter  of  argument : 
it  is  only  the  statement  of  a  fact  apparent  on  inspection. 

V.  But  it  may  be  said,  that  no  one  supposes  that  Mark  derived 
his  knowledge  of  the  events  in  Christ's  ministry  solely  from  the 
Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke ;  on  the  contrary,  as  a  preacher  of 
Christianity,  he  must  have  been  well  acquainted  with  them  from 
other  sources.  Nor  is  it  maintained,  that  he  transcribed  from  one 
or  the  other  in  every  case  where  he  relates  the  same  events.  But 
what  is  contended  for  is,  that  he  made  use  of  their  Gospels,  partic- 
ularly that  of  Matthew,  in  composing  his  own  ;  and  that  this 
supposition  is  proved  by  the  remarkable  correspondences  between 
his  Gospel  and  each  of  the  other  two,  in  various  passages.  These 
resemblances,  it  may  be  urged,  are  so  great  as  to  render  it 
highly  probable  that  one  evangelist  copied  from  another. 

In  this  reasoning,  it  is  supposed  that  one  evangelist  copied  from 
another,  because  the  resemblance  between  them  is  so  great.  I 
answer,  that  very  few  instances  can  be  pointed  out,  in  which  this 
supposition  does  not  require  a  much  greater  resemblance  than 
exists ;  and  that  most  of  the  passages  in  which  it  is  found,  instead 
of  rendering  it  probable  that  one  evangelist  transcribed  from 
another,  afford  strong  reasons  for  an  opposite  conclusion.  I  will 
quote,  for  example,  the  account  of  the  call  of  Matthew,  the  enter- 
tainment in  his  house,  and  the  conversation  occasioned  by  it,  as 
given  by  the  three  evangelists. 

MXtt.  ix.  9-17.  Mark  ii.  14-22.  Luke  v.  27-39. 

(Ver.  9.)  And  Jesus,  (Ver.  14.)   And,  as  (Ver.  27.)  And,  after 

as     he     was     passing  he  was  passing  along,  this,    Jesus    went    out, 

thence,    saw    a    man,  he  saw  Levi,  the  son  of  and  saw  a  tax-gatherer, 

called  Matthew,  sitting  Alpheus,  sitting  to  re-  by  the  name  of  Levi, 


CORRESPONDENCES  OF  THE  GOSPELS. 


483 


Matt.  ix.  9-17. 
to  receive  the  customs ; 
and  said  to  him,  Come 
with  me.  And  he  arose, 
and  went  with  him. 


(Ver.  10.)  And  while 
Jesus  was  at  table  in 
his  house,  lo!  many 
tax-gatherers  and  sin- 
ners, who  had  come, 
were  at  table  with  Je- 
sus and  his  disciples. 

(Ver.  11.)  And  the 
Pharisees,  seeing  this, 
said  to  his  disciples, 
Why  does  your  teacher 
eat  with  these  tax- 
gatherers  and  sinners? 


(Ver.  12.)  But  Je- 
sus, hearing  this,  said 
to  them,  The  well  need 
not  a  physician,  but  the 
sick. 

(Ver.  13.)  But  go 
3''e,  and  learn  what  this- 
means,  /(ffsiVe  goodness 
and  not  sacrifices.  For  I 
did  not  come  to  give  an 
invitation  to  righteous 
men,  but  to  sinners. 


(Ver.  14.)  Then  the 
disciples  of  John  came 
to  him,  and  said.  Why, 
when  we  and  the  Phari- 
sees fast  often, 


Makk  ii.  14-22. 
ceive  the  customs;  and 
said  to  him,  Come  with 
me.    And  he  arose,  and 
went  with  him. 


(Ver.  15.)  And  while 
Jesus  was  at  table  in 
his  house,  many  tax- 
gatherers  and  sinners 
also  were  at  table  with 
Jesus  and  his  disciples; 
fbr  there  were  many 
who  had  followed  him. 

(Ver.  16.)  And  the 
teachers  of  the  Law,  and 
the  Pharisees,  seeing 
him  eating  with  the 
tax-gatherers  and  sin- 
ners, said  to  his  disci- 
ples, How  is  it  that  he 
is  eating  and  drinking 
with  these  tax-gather- 
ers and  sinners? 

(Ver.  17.)  And  Je- 
sus, hearing  this,  said 
to  them,  The  well  need 
not  a  physician,  but  the 
sick. 


I  did  not  come  to  give 
an  invitation  to  right- 
eous men,  but  to  sin- 
ners. 

(Ver.  18.)  And  the 
disciples  of  John  and 
the  Pharisees  were 
keeping  a  fast;  and 
they  came  and  said  to 
him,  Why,  when  the 
disciples  of  John  and 
those  of  the  Pharisees 


Luke  v.  27-39. 
sitting  to    receive    the 
customs  ;    and   sail   to 
liim.  Come  with  me. 

(Ver.  28.)  And,  leav- 
ing ever}' thing,  he  arose 
and  went  witli  him. 

(Ver.  29.)  And  Levi 
made  a  great  entertain- 
ment for  him  in  hia 
house ;  and  there  was  a 
great  number  of  tax- 
gatherers  and  others, 
who  were  at  table  with 
them. 

(Ver.  30.)  But  their 
teachers  of  the  Law, 
and  the  Pharisees,  mur- 
mured at  this,  saying  to 
his  disciples,  Why  are 
ye  eating  and  drinking 
with  these  tax-gather- 
ers and  sinners? 


(Ver.  31.)  And  Je- 
sus, answering,  said  to 
them,  They  who  are 
in  health  need  not  a 
physician,  but  the  sick. 


(Ver.  32.)  I  have 
not  come  to  call  right- 
eous men,  but  sinners, 
to  reformation. 

(Ver.  33.)  But  they 


said  to  him,  Why,  when 
the  disciples  oC.Tolin  are 
continually  fasting  and 
making     supplications, 


484 


ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 


Matt.  ix.  9-17. 
do    not    thy    disciples 
fast? 

(Ver.  15.)  And  Je- 
sus said  to  them,  Can 
the  companions  of  the 
bridegroom  mourn,  so 
long  as  the  bridegroom 
is  with  them  V 


But  the  days  are  com- 
ing when  the  bride- 
groom will  be  taken 
from  them;  and  then 
will  they  fast. 


(Ver.  16.)  No  one 
puts  a  patch  of  un- 
dressed cloth  upon  an 
old  garment;  for  the 
piece  would  tear  away 
from  the  garment,  and 
a  worse  rent  be  made. 

(Ver.  17.)  Nor  do 
men  put  new  wine  into 
old  skins;  for  the  skins 
would  burst,  and  the 
wine  run  to  waste,  and 
the  skins  would  be 
spoilt  But  they  put 
new  wine  into  new 
skins,  so  that  both  may 
be  preserved. 


Mark  ii.  14-22. 
are  fasting,  do  not  thy 
disciples  fast? 

(Ver.  19.)  And  Je- 
sus said  to  them.  Can 
the  companions  of  the 
bridegroom  fast,  while 
the  bridegroom  is  Avith 
them  V  As  long  as  they 
have  the  bridegroom 
with  them,  they  cannot 
fast. 

(Ver.  20.)  But  the 
days  are  coming  when 
the  bridegroom  will  be 
taken  from  them;  and 
then  will  they  fast  in 
that  day. 


(Ver.  21.)  No  one 
sews  a  patch  of  un- 
dressed cloth  upon  an 
old  garment;  otherwise 
the  new  piece  would 
tear  away  from  the  old 
garment,  and  a  worse 
rent  be  made. 

(Ver.  22.)  And  no 
one  puts  new  wine  into 
old  skins;  for  the  new 
wine  would  burst  the 
skins,  and  the  wine 
would  run  to  waste, 
and  the  skins  would  be 
spoilt.  But  new  wine 
must  be  put  into  new 
skins. 


Luke  v.  27-39. 
and  likewise   those  of 
tlie  Pharisees,  are  thine 
eating  and  drinking? 

(Ver.  34.)  But  he 
said  to  them.  Can  ye 
make  the  companions 
of  the  bridegroom  fast, 
while  the  bridegroom  is 
with  them? 


(Ver.  3-5.)  But  the 
days  are  coming  when 
the  bridegroom  will  be 
taken  from  them:  then 
will  they  fast  in  those 
days. 

(Ver.  36.)  Then  he 
spake  a  parable  to 
them:  No  one  takes  a 
patch  from  a  new  gai*- 
ment  to  put  upon  an 
■old  garment;  otherwise 
the  new  garment  would 
be  cut,  and  the  patch 
from  the  new  would  not 
match  with  the  old. 

(Ver;  37.)  And  no 
one  puts  new  wine  into 
old  skins;  for  the  new 
wine  would  burst  the 
skins,  and  it  would  run 
to  waste,  and  the  skins 
would  be  spoilt. 

(Ver.  38.)  But  new 
wine  must  be  put  into 
new  skins,  so  that  both 
may  be  preserved. 

(Ver.  39.)  And  no 
one,  after  drinking  old 
wine,  immediately  wish- 
es for  new ;  for  he  says, 
The  old  is  better. 


CORRESPONDENCES  OF  THE  GOSPELS.      485 

The  preceding  is  a  spejcimcn  of  the  accordance  of  meaning  and 
language  which  is  found  among  the  first  three  Gospels.  It  is  else- 
where mixed  with  similar  diversities.  But  a  comparison  of  such 
parallel  passages  from  the  different  evangelists  shows,  I  think, 
that  no  one  of  them  copied  from  either  of  the  others. 

As  in  the  example  given,  so  generally  in  other  cases  of  parallel- 
ism among  the  first  three  Gospels,  variations  of  expression,  omis- 
sions, and  additions  occur,  which  are  not  to  be  accounted  for  on 
the  theory,  that  the  evangelists  copied  one  from  another ;  because 
they  are  such  as  cannot  be  ascribed  to  accident,  and,  at  the  same 
time,  such  as  would  not  have  been  made  by  design.  Thus,  in  the 
specimen  given,  if  either  Mark  or  Luke  had  been  copying  from 
Matthew,  it  is  unlikely  that  he  would  have  substituted  the  name 
of  Levi,  by  which  that  evangelist  appears  to  have  been  known 
before  his  becoming  a  disciple,  for  the  name  of  Matthew,  by  which 
he  was  commonly  called  afterwards,  and  which  he  himself  had 
used  in  this  place ;  or  that  Luke,  if  he  had  Mark  before  him, 
and  had  preferred  the  name  of  Levi,  would  have  omitted  the 
further  designation,  "  the  son  of  Alpheus."  Mark,  if  he  had  been 
following  Luke,  would  have  retained  the  explicit  statement  of  the 
latter,  that  the  entertainment,  at  which  our  Lord  was  present,  was 
made  by  Matthew  ;  and,  with  Matthew  for  his  guide,  he  would  not 
have  changed  the  clear  and  simple  expressions  used  by  him  In 
the  tenth  and  eleventh  verses  for  his  own  more  diffuse,  and,  in  the 
original,  more  obscure  language.  Luke,  it  is  evident,  was,  la 
the  corresponding  verses,  neither  the  original  nor  the  copyist  of 
either.  The  question  of  the  Pharisees  respecting  Christ's  eating 
with  tax-gatherers  and  sinners  is  given  in  different  terms  by  each 
of  the  evangelists  ;  yet,  if  any  one  of  them  copied  from  either  of 
the  others,  it  does  not  appear  what  motive  could  have  Induced  him 
to  change  Its  form.  Similar  remarks  may  be  made  respecting  the 
other  variations  of  language  among  the  evangelists,  Avhich  occur  in 
this  passage.  But  there  are  differences  of  another  kind.  The 
first  clause  of  the  thirteenth  verse  of  Matthew  seems  to  me  essen- 
tial to  a  full  understanding  of  the  meaning  of  Jesus.*      But, 


*  The  words  of  ^latthcw  are  these:  "But  Jesus,  hearing  this,  said  to 
them,  The  well  need  not  a  physician,  hut  the  sick.  But  go  ye,  and  learn  ichat 
this  means,  '/  desire  goodness,  and  not  sacrifces.'     For  I  did  not  come  to  giv» 


486  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

whether  it  be  so  or  not,  neither  Mark  nor  Luke,  had  they  been 
borrowing  from  Matthew,  would  have  omitted  it  as  they  have 
done,  copying,  at  the  same  time,  the  words  which  precede  and 
follow.  In  the  next  verse  (the  eighteenth)  of  Mark,  he  states 
explicitly,  that  the  disciples  of  John  and  the  Pharisees  were  keep- 
ing a  fast,  which  is  not  done  by  the  other  evangelists.*  It  is  a 
circumstance  which  throws  a  strong  light  upon  their  state  of  feel- 
ing when  seeing  Jesus  at  the  same  tiuie  present  at  an  entertain- 
ment with  tax-gatherers  and  sinners.  The  fact  does  not  appear  in 
the  account  of  the  other  evangelists.  But  it  is  not  probable,  that, 
if  either  Matthew  or  Luke  had  been  transcribing  from  Mark's 
Gospel,  he  would  have  omitted  this  circumstance  by  design,  or 
passed  over  it  by  accident.  At  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  verse  of 
Matthew,  neither  Mark  nor  Luke,  if  copying  his  text,  would  have 
thought  it  necessary  to  add  the  superfluous  words,  "  in  that  day," 
or  "  in  those  days."  Luke,  in  the  thirty-sixth  verse,  borrowed 
from  neither  Matthew  nor  Mark,  and  neither  borrowed  from  him. 
And,  with  Luke's  Gospel  before  them,  there  is  no  likelihood  that 
either  Matthew  or  Mark  would  have  omitted  the  concluding  words 


an  invitation  to  righteous  men,  but  to  sinners."  The  words  in  italics  are 
omitted  by  the  other  evangelists.  But  our  Saviour's  answer,  as  given  by 
Matthew,  is,  I  conceive,  to  be  thus  understood :  —  You  reproach  me  for  being 
with  tax-gatherers  and  sinners:  it  is  fitting  I  should  be;  the  well  need  not 
a  physician,  but  the  sick.  But  do  not  think  that  you  are  less  morally  dis- 
eased than  those  whom  you  despise.  You,  no  more  than  they,  perform  what 
God  requires:  while  you  insist  on  ceremonies  and  superstitious  observances, 
you  neglect  what  is  essential  in  religion  and  morality.  Go  ye,  and  learn 
what  this  means,  I  desire  goodness^  and  not  sacrifices.  I  came  to  give  an 
invitation  to  all  to  accept  God's  mere}';  and  as  regards  you,  as  well  as 
them,  I  did  not  come  to  give  an  invitation  to  righteous  men,  but  to  sinners. 

*  It  appears  from  the  Talmud,  that  the  more  religious  Jews  fasted  on 
Mondays  and  Thursdays.  Thus  the  Pharisee  mentioned  in  Luke  xviii.  12 
is  represented  by  our  Saviour  as  saying,  "  I  fast  twice  a  week."  Now  we 
have  before  inferred,  from  the  account  of  Matthew  (see  p.  470),  that  the 
entertainment  at  Matthew's  house  took  place  on  Monday.  This  accords 
with  Mark's  account,  that  the  disciples  of  John  and  the  Pharisees  -were  keep- 
ing a.  fast  [rjaav  vrjarevovTeg).  This  coincidence  between  the  Gospels,  to  be 
ascertained  only  by  what  we  learn  from  the  Talmud,  deserv^es  remark,  as 
one  among  many  facts  of  a  similar  kind  which  serve  to  establish  their 
authenticity. 


CORRESPONDENCES  OF  THE  GOSPELS.      487 

of  Jesus,  as  given  by  Luke  (ver.  39),  which  accord  so  well  with 
the  context. 

In  order  fully  to  estimate  the  force  of  the  preceding  remarks, 
we  must  recollect,  that  no  copyist,  writing  in  the  same  style  with 
his  original,  would  designedly  change  the  ideas  or  expressions  of 
the  latter,  except  for  the  sake  of  some  real  or  fancied  improve- 
ment; unless,  indeed,  his  purpose  were  to  conceal  })lagiarism, — a 
purpose  which  no  one  will  ascribe  to  the  evangelists.  But  noth- 
ing, that  can  be  supposed  a  real  or  fmcied  improvement,  appears 
in  the  differences  that  have  been  mentioned,  or  in  many  others 
that  might  be  specified  in  the  parallel  passages  of  the  first  three 
Gospels.  It  is  particularly  improbable,  that  such  changes  should 
have  been  made  by  any  one  of  the  three  evangelists,  since  the 
style  and  vocabulary  of  all  are  essentially  the  same ;  and,  except 
so  far  as  Luke  may  form  a  partial  exception,  they  obviously  had 
little  command  of  language.  But  for  some  strong  reason,  there- 
fore, any  one  of  them  would  have  copied  literally  the  already 
well-known  narrative,  which  he  found  before  him,  except,  perhaps, 
that  St.  Luke,  if  he  wrote  last,  might  sometimes  have  retouched 
the  style  of  his  predecessors.  Certainly,  no  one  of  them  would 
have  made  an  unnnportant  addition  in  one  place,  and  omitted  an 
important  passage  in  another;  nor  so  varied  his  own  account  as  to 
render  it  obscure  and  imperfect,  requiring,  in  order  to  be  fully 
understood,  that  the  Gospel  from  which  he  copied  should  be  con- 
sulted as  a  commentary  on  his  own.  Yet,  however  we  may 
arrange  the  order  of  transcription,  all  this  must  be  supposed  in 
reference  to  the  two  evangelists  who  are  represented  as  tran- 
scribers, especially  if  the  two  be  Mark  and  Luke. 

These  observations  are  applicable  to  a  large  portion  of  the 
Gospels,  but  are  particularly  striking  as  regards  the  narrative  of 
the  closing  scenes  of  our  Saviour^'s  life,  his  death,  his  resurrection, 
and  the  events  subsequent.  Such  are  the  omissions  and  dilfer- 
ences  from  one  another  in  the  accounts  of  the  three  evangelists, 
that,  considering  these  alone,  I  cannot  believe  that  any  one  of 
them  had  seen  the  work  of  either  of  the  others.  This  is  a  portion 
of  the  Gospels  which  has  been  too  little  attended  to,  either  by 
those  who  suppose  that  the  evangelists  transcribed  one  from 
another,  or  by  those  who  suppose  that  they  transcribed  from 
common  documents 


488  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

It  may  appear,  then,  that,  beside  the  particular  objections  to 
any  particular  form  that  may  be  given  to  the  supposition  that  the 
evangelists  copied  one  from  another,  the  general  objections  to  it 
are  these  :  — There  is  no  reasonable  principle  of  selection  on  which 
they  can  be  supposed  to  have  proceeded.  They  were,  all  of  them, 
as  preachers  of  Christianity,  well  acquainted  with  the  transactions 
which  it  was  their  purpose  to  record ;  their  independent  knowl- 
edge of  them  appears  in  the  Gospel  of  each ;  they  had,  therefore, 
no  occasion  to  copy  one  from  another,  and  it  is  a  fact,  obvious 
simply  upon  inspection,  that  far  the  greater  part  of  each  Gospel 
was  not  thus  copied.  And,  lastly,  their  Gospels  generally,  and 
even  those  very  passages  on  which  this  theory  of  transcription  has 
been  founded,  present  numerous  diversities  of  such  a  character  as 
the  evangelist,  whichever  may  be  supposed  the  copyist,  would  not 
have  made,  with  the  text  of  his  predecessor,  or  predecessors, 
before  him  as  an  archetype. 


Section  III. 

On  the  Supposition  that  the  First  Three  Evangelists  made  Use  of 
Common  Written  Documents. 

The  supposition  that  the  first  three  evangelists  copied  one 
from  another  has  found,  comparatively,  but  few  defenders  in  later 
times,  and  has  been  superseded,  in  a  great  degree,  by  the  suppo- 
sition that  they  all  transcribed  from  common  written  documents. 
This  hypothesis  we  have  had  occasion  to  notice  in  the  text  of 
the  present  work.*  I  will  state  it  generally,  as  explained  by 
Bishop  Marsh,  who  may  be  considered  as  having  improved  upon 
Eichhorn,  from  whom  he  borrowed  it.  The  differences  between 
them  are  not  such  as  to  affect  its  credibility. 

It  is  supposed,  then,  that  there  was  an  original  narrative  of  the 
life  of  Christ,  an  original  Gospel,]  which  contained,  in  some  form 
or  other,  all  those  relations  that  are  common  to  our  first  three 
Gospels.     This,  it  is  thought,  was  receiving  continual  additions 

*  See  before,  pp.  60,  61. 

t  I  use  this  term,  borrowed  from  Eichhorn,  for  the  sake  of  convenience 
and  distinctness  of  expression.     It  is  not  employed  by  Bishop  Marsh. 


CORRESPONDENCES  OF  THE  GOSPELS.      489 

from  its  various  transcribers,  difTercnt  in  difTercnt  copies.  The 
first  three  evangelists  are  supposed  each  to  have  used  a  diirerent 
copy  as  the  basis  of  his  Gospel.  Matthew's  copy,  beside  the 
original  text,  contained  likewise  the  additional  matter  which  he 
has  in  common  with  Mark  alone,  or  Avith  Luke  alone.  ^Mark's 
copy  differed  from  this,  both  in  Avanting  the  matter  which  is  coiii- 
mon  to  jNIatthew  and  Luke  only,  and  in  having  additional  matter 
not  found  in  Matthew's  copy ;  namc.'ly,  that  which  is  conmion  to 
Mark  and  Luke  only.  Luke's  copy,  in  like  manner,  had  certain 
additions,  which  are  common  to  him  either  with  Matthew  or 
with  Mark,  and  wanted  those  passages  Avhich  are  found  only  in 
the  two  last-mentioned  evangelists.* 

The  Original  Gospel,  and  the  three  modifications  of  it  just 
mentioned,  Avere  all  Avritten  in  the  Syro-Chaldee,  or,  as  it  is  moi-e 
popularly  term-ed,  the  PlebrcAv  language.  IMatthew's  Gospel  was 
originally  Avritten  in  the  same  language.  But  jNIark  and  Luke 
wrote  in  Greek,  and  each  translated  into  that  language  the  docu- 
ment Avhich  he  used  as  the  basis  of  his  Gospel.  But  the  verbal 
harmony  betAveen  them  in  that  portion  of  matter  Avhich  consti- 
tuted the  Original  Gospel,  before  it  had  received  any  additions,  is 
believed  to  be  greater  than  Avould  result  from  tAvo  independent 
translations  of  the  same  Avork.  In  order  to  account  for  it,  there- 
fore, it  is  supposed,  that  the  Original  Gospel,  before  any  additions 
had  been  made  to  it,  Avas  translated  into  Greek ;  and  that  j\Lark 
and  Luke  each  had  a  copy  of  this  Greek  translation,  from  Avhich 
he  occasionally  derived  assistance  in  rendering  his  HebrCAv  docu- 
ment. Each  sometimes  adopted  its  Avords  in  the  same  passage ; 
and  in  these  passages  they  agree  verbally  Avith  each  other. 

But  besides  the  enlarged  copy  of  the  Original  Gospel,  AA'hich 
was  in  the  hands  of  each  of  the  evangelists,  and  the  Greek  trans- 
lation of  this  Gospel,  used  by  Mark  and  Luke,  it  is  further 
supposed  that  there  Avas  another  document,  Avritten  in  Hebrew, 
which  Avas  used  only  by  MatthcAv  and  Luke ;  the  former  incorpo- 
rating It  Into  his  Gospel  in  the  original  language,  and  the  latter 

*  Bi~hop  Marsh  distinguishes  between  those  additions,  common  to  two 
of  the  Go?pel<,  Avhich  Avere  made  to  narratiA'a^  ah-eady  extant  in  the  Origi:ial 
Gospel,  and  those  additions  Avhich  Avere  made  of  new  narratives  common  to 
two  of  the  Gospels;  but  this  is  a  distinction  not  important  to  be  attended 
to  hi  reference  to  our  present  purpose. 


490  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

translating  it  into  Greek.  This  was  a  collection  of  precepts, 
parables,  and  discourses,  which  had  been  delivered  by  Christ  at 
ditlerent  times  and  on  ditierent  occasions.  The  name  of  Gno- 
mologia  has  been  given  it,  with  reference  to  its  supposed  character. 
The  copies  of  this  document  used  by  Matthew  and  Luke,  though 
generally  agreeing,  differed  in  some  respects  from  each  other. 
It  was  not  arranged  with  any  regard  to  chronological  order. 
Matthew,  being  an  apostle,  is  thought  to  have  inserted  the  dif- 
ferent portions  of  it  in  different  parts  of  his  Gospel;  "having 
regard,  probably,  to  the  times  and  occasions  when  the  sayings 
of  our  Saviour  were  delivered."  *  But  Luke,  who  was  not  pres- 
ent at  their  delivery,  did  not  undertake  to  do  this.  With  the 
exception  of  only  two  portions,  "both  of  which  have  internal 
notes  of  time,"  he  inserted  in  his  Gospel  the  whole  collection,  as 
he  found  it;  and  it  constitutes  that  portion  of  matter  which 
extends  from  chap.  ix.  ver.  51  to  chap,  xviii.  ver.  14.  But  by  a 
license  which  must,  I  think,  be  regarded  as  extraordinary  and 
unjustifiable,  "  he  gave,"  it  is  said,  "  to  the  whole  the  form  of  a 
narrative,  in  order  to  make  it  correspond  with  the  rest  of  his 
Gospel,  which  was  not  a  collection  of  unconnected  facts,  but  a 
continued  history."  f 

In  order  to  explain  the  verbal  harmony  between  our  present 
Greek  Gospel  of  Matthew  and  the  Gospels  of  Mark  and  Luke,  it 
is  supposed  that  the  translator  of  the  former  derived  assistance 
from  the  two  latter  Gospels,  and  borrowed  their  language  in  cases 
where  there  is  a  correspondence  of  matter  between  them  and 
that  of  Matthew. 

I  will  briefly  recapitulate  the  steps  in  this  hypothesis.  The 
first  supposition  is  of  an  Original  Gospel,  written  in  Hebrew,  and 
receiving  continual  additions  from  various  hands.  This  is  sup- 
posed to  have  been  used  in  three  different  forms  by  the  first  three 
evangelists,  being  in  one  of  its  forms  the  basis  of  the  work  of 
each.  Besides  this  document,  it  is  supposed  that  there  was 
another,  a  miscellaneous  collection  of  discourses  and  sayings  of 


*  INrarsh's  Dissertation,  in  the  second  part  of  the  third  volume  of  his 
Translation  of  Michaelis's  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  p.  401 
t  Ibid.,  p.  402. 


CORRESPONDENCES  OF  THE  GOSPELS.      491 

Jesus,  likewise  written  in  Hebrew,  which  was  used  only  hy  Mat- 
thew and  Luke.  Thus,  the  general  correspondetire  of  matter  and 
language  among  all  three  evangelists,  and  between  any  two  of 
the  evangelists  in  portions  j)eeuliar  to  them,  is  thought  to  be 
accounted  for.  Tiie  verbal  coincidences  between  Mark  and  Luke 
are  explained  by  the  supposition,  that  they  both  used  a  Greek 
translation  of  the  Original  Gospel,  made  before  that  work  had 
received  any  additions ;  and  the  verbal  coincidenees  between  our 
present  Greek  Gospel  of  Mattliew  and  the  other  two  Gospels, 
by  the  supposition,  that  his  translator  used  their  Gospels  in  ren- 
dering into  Greek  the  Hebrew  original  of  ALitthew. 

In  maintaining  this  hypothesis,  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels 
is  asserted  by  Bishop  Marsh ;  and  its  other  defenders  have  not 
attempted  to  free  it  irom  the  peculiar  objections,  formerly  stated,* 
to  which  it  is  liable,  if  their  genuineness  be  denied.  I  shall 
therefore  oifer  some  arguments  in  which  their  genuineness  is  sup- 
posed. But  I  think  it  will  be  perceived,  that,  distinct  from  these, 
there  are  intrinsic  and  insuperable  objections  to  the  hypothesis, 
both  from  the  positions  it  involves,  and  from  its  being  founded  on 
an  erroneous  and  imperfect  view  of  the  phenomena  of  the  Gos- 
pels, so  that  it  neither  explains  nor  is  consistent  with  those 
phenomena.     What  the  objections  are,  we  will  now  consider. 

I.  The  imagined  Original  Gospel  must  have  been  a  work  of 
the  highest  authority.  This  is  implied  in  its  having  been  made 
the  basis  of  our  first  three  Gospels,  and,  as  is  supposed  by 
Eichhorn  and  Marsh,  of  other  Gospels  of  a  similar  character. 
Bishop  Marsh  like^vise  supposes,  that  it  Avas  "  drawn  up  from 
communications  made  by  the  apostles ;  and,  therefore,  that  it  was 
not  only  a  work  of  good  authority,  but  a  work  which  was  worthy 
of  furnishing  materials  to  any  one  of  the  apostles  who  had 
formed  a  resolution  of  writing  a  more  complete  history."  f  I'^'^'^^" 
horn  reo-ards  it  as  having  been  a  work  sanctioned  by  the  apostles, 
and  communicated  by  them  to  the  first  Christian  missionaries,  to 
guide  the  latter  in  their  preaching4 


*  See  before,  p.  96,  seqq. 

t  Marsh's   Dissertation,   p.   363:    comp.   Illustration  of  his   Hypothesis. 
p.  15,  seqq.  X  Einleit.  in  d.  N.T.,  vol  i.  p.  1,  seqq.,  p.  162,  seqq. 


•492  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

But  the  language  of  Bishop  Mai'sh,  in  calling  it  a  work  **of 
good  authority/'  and  "  worthy  of  furnishing  materials  for  an 
apostle,"  Is  Inadequate  to  express  its  character,  if  its  origin,  and 
the  use  which  was  made  of  it,  were  such  as  have  been  supposed. 
It  must  have  been  a  work  of  the'highest  authority.  Coming  forth 
under  the  sanction  of  the  apostles,  and  founded  on  their  connnu- 
nications,  it  must  have  commanded  universal  credence  among 
believers.  It  cannot  be,  nor  is  it,  supposed,  that  it  was  a  private, 
unpublished  writing.  It  would  not  have  been  kept  back  from  any 
who  wished  to  possess  it.  It  was  translated  (as  is  part  of  the 
hypothesis)  into  the  Greek  language ;  and  copies  of  It,  therefore, 
must  have  been  widely  circulating,  wherever  Christianity  was 
spread.  No  satisfactory  account,  then,  can  be  given,  I  do  not 
say  merely  of  the  fact,  that  there  are  no  historical  notices  of  the 
existence  of  such  a  work ;  but  of  the  fact,  that  it  has  not  been 
actually  preserved,  at  least  in  its  Greek  translation. 

It  may  indeed  be  said  that  it  was  so  altered,  and  so  blended 
with  various  additions,  in  the  different  copies  and  refashionings 
which  were  made  of  it,  as,  in  this  manner,  to  become  lost  as  a 
separate  work.  But  those  additions  and  alterations,  according  to 
the  hypothesis,  were  made  by  anonymous  copyists.  They  were 
supported,  therefore,  by  no  authority  publicly  known  and  ac- 
knowledged. No  one  could  be  certain,  except  through  private 
information,  by  whom  they  were  made,  or  on  what  grounds.  But 
the  Original  Gospel,  in  its  primary,  uncorrupted  state,  was  a 
work  of  a  very  different  character,  carrying  with  it  the  authority 
of  the  apostles.  If  we  should  admit,  that  some  copies  of  this 
document,  containing  certain  additions,  had  been  made  by  par- 
ticular individuals  for  their  own  use,  yet  there  can  be  no  reasona- 
ble question,  that  the  copies  in  common  circulation  would  be 
conformed  to  the  original  text. 

To  account  for  its  loss,  therefore,  as  a  separate  work,  the 
opposite  ground  has  been  taken.  It  has  been  said,  that  "  each  of 
the  iirst  three  Gospels  contained  the  lohole  of  this  document,"  and 
that,  consequently,  whoever  possessed  any  one  of  the  -former 
possessed  the  whole  of  the  latter  in  its  primitive  state,  and  could 
therefore  have  had  no  motive  for  procuring  a  separate  copy  of  it.* 

*  Marsh's  Illustration  of  his  Hypothesis,  p.  54. 


CORRESPONDENCES  OF  THE  GOSPELS.      493 

This  is  a  proposition  which  will  hereafter  be  examined  at  len^'th ; 
but  I  may  here  answer  brielly,  that  the  fact  is  not  as  stated.  The 
Original  Gospel  does  not  lie  nnbedded,  in  its  primitive  Ibrm,  in 
any  one  of  the  first  three  Gospels.  We  cannot  strike  off  por- 
tions from  either  of  them,  so  as  to  leave  a  Avork  which,  when 
fairly  exhibited,  any  one  will  pretend  is  the  ancient  document  in 
question,  or  any  thing  very  like  it.  After  the  publication  of 
these  Gospels,  therefore,  the  Original  Gospel  still  remained  a 
distinct  work,  and  a  work  of  the  highest  authority,  value,  and 
curiosity.  It  was  at  least  as  much  worth  preserving,  and  as 
likely  to  be  preserved,  together  with  those  three  Gospels,  as  any 
one  of  the  three,  together  with  the  other  two.  But  no  such  work 
has  been  preserved ;  no  memory  of  such  a  work  can  be  discov- 
ered ;  and  therefore  there  is  a  strong  improbability  that  such  a 
work  ever  existed.  If,  for  any  reason,  we  were  to  imagine,  that 
the  disciples  of  Socrates  sanctioned  and  circulated  some  history 
of  their  master,  which  has  disappeared,  and  of  which  no  mention 
is  extant,  the  supposition  would  be  less  incredible.  It  would  be 
difficult  to  conceive  of  any  ancient  work  so  unlikely  to  be  lost 
and  utterly  forgotten,  as  an  account  of  Christ,  composed  from  the 
communications  of  his  apostles,  and  published  under  their  sanc- 
tion, which  had  once  been  in  common  use  among  Christians. 

II.  Respecting  the  supposed  additions  to  the  Original  Gospel, 
Bishop  Marsh  says,  that  in  process  of  time,  as  new  conununica- 
tions  from  the  apostles  and  other  eye-witnesses  brought  to  light 
additional  circumstances  or  transactions,  which  had  been  unno- 
ticed in  the  Original  Gospel,  those  who  possessed  copies  of  it 
added  in  their  manuscripts  such  additional  circumstances  and 
transactions;  and  these  additions,  in  subsequent  copies,  were 
inserted  in  the  text.*  In  order  to  form  the  documents  imagined 
to  have  been  used  by  the  evangelists,  five  such  transcriptions  of 
the  Original  Gospel  are  the  fewest  that  can  be  supposed;  and 
these  must  have  been  made  by  transcribers  who  ilid  not  commu- 
nicate their  respective  additions  to  each  other. f  Eichhorn  says, 
that  it  had  passed  through  many  hands  before  being  used  by  the 
authors  of  our  present  Gospels  ;  and  that  its  possessors,  copyists, 


»  Dissertation,  p.  366.  t  Ibid.,  p.  367. 


494  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

and  translators  had  made  additions  in  their  respective  copies, 
either  from  their  personal  knowledge  or  from  the  information  of 
credible  men,  of  circumstances  or  transactions  which  had  beeu 
omitted  in  those  copies.*  It  is  supposed  in  these  representations, 
that  many  different  enlarged  copies  of  the  Original  Gospel  were 
in  common  circulation,  superseding  the  copies  of  it  in  its  primi- 
tive state. 

But  to  this  supposition  are  opposed  considerations  which  have 
been  already  stated.  Accounts  claiming  the  highest  credit,  a3 
sanctioned  by  the  apostles,  would  not  have  been  confounded  with 
accounts  collected  by  anonymous  transcribers,  as  if  the  latter 
were  of  equal  authority  with  the  former.  A  work  of  such  char- 
acter and  claims  as  the  Original  Gospel  would  not  have  been 
tampered  with  in  the  manner  supposed.  The  original,  life  of  the 
Founder  of  our  religion,  proceeding  from  those  whom  he  had 
selected  to  be  eye-witnesses  of  the  truth,  and  circulating  among 
their  disciples,  was  not  a  work  to  be  subjected  to  a  series  of 
interpolations  so  extraordinary  as  to  be  without  parallel  in  liter- 
ary history,  f 

III.  We  may  next  observe,  that  the  supposition  that  the 
Original  Gospel  was  subjected  to  this  continual  process  of  fan- 
cied improvement,  and  that  so  much  care  was  taken  by  so  many 
transcribers  to  retouch  and  complete  it,  is  altogether  inconsist- 
ent with  the  genius  and  habits  of  the  Jews  of  Palestine,  among 
whom  those  transcribers  must  have  been  found.  The  Original 
Gospel  is  said  to  have  been  written  in  Hebrew,  and  the  additions, 
in  its  different  copies,  to  have  been  made  in  the  same  language. 


*  Einleit.  in  d.  N.T.,  i.  172,  173. 

t  Considerations  of  this  sort,  perhaps,  induced  Bishop  Marsh  to  change 
somewhat  the  representation  which  he  had  given,  respecting  the  supposed 
additions  to  the  Original  Gospel,  in  his  Dissertation  on  the  Origin  of  the 
first  three  Gospels ;  and  to  propose  another  in  one  of  his  defences  of  that  work. 
In  his  Dissertation,  he  speaks,  in  common  with  Eichhorn,  of  those  additions 
as  having  been  inserted  in  the  text  of  the  copies  used  by  the  evangelists;  in 
his  Illustration  of  his  Hypothesis  (p.  79),  he  supposes  that  they  may  have 
been  only  written  in  the  margin  of  their  copies,  each  of  which,  accordingly, 
would  contain  the  same  text  of  the  original  Hebrew  document,  surrounded 
with  difterent  sets  of  these  "marginal  additions." 


CORRESPONDENCES  OF  THE  GOSPELS.      495 

But  the  Jews  of  Palestine  were  not  writers.  Thev  liad  no  pro- 
fane literature.  They  had  scarcely  any  ac(iuaint;uico  with  oihcr 
books  than  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  With  the  txccp- 
tion  of  these  writings,  they  were  not  in  the  habit  of  reiving'  upon 
books  to  preserve  the  memory  of  lacts  or  doctrines.  Their  liter- 
ature, such  as  it  was,  connected  almost  solely  with  their  relij^ion 
and  laws,  was,  in  great  part,  traditionary  and  oral.  Now,  under 
a  strong  impulse,  and  the  action  of  very  powerful  motives,  writ- 
ers may  appear  among  such  a  people,  as  did  the  evangelists  and 
apostles,  —  writers  discovering  all  that  want  of  skill  and  facility 
in  composition  which  characterizes  the  Gospels ;  but,  such  being 
the  state  of  letters  among  the  Jews  of  Palestine,  it  would  have 
been  very  foreign  from  their  habits  to  commit  to  writing,  in  the 
margin  of  their  manuscripts  of  the  Original  Gospel,  accounts  of 
particular  transactions  and  sayings,  not  mentioned  in  it.  Being 
unaccustomed  to  the  use  of  books  except  those  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  having  but  an  imperfect  sense  of  the  utility  of  books, 
it  is  not  to  be  believed,  that  the  possessors  of  that  work  should  at 
once  have  become  so  busy  about  correcting  and  completing  it  in 
their  particular  copies.  They  never  would  have  thought  of  mak- 
ing a  record  of  any  new  fact  which  might  have  come  to  their 
knowledge,  through  fear  that  it  would  be  forgotten  by  themselves, 
or  that  its  memory  would  perish,  unless  put  down  in  writing. 
Even  among  readers  of  the  present  day,  different  as  our  intellect- 
ual habits  are  from  those  of  the  Jews,  and  accustomed  as  we  are 
to  rely  upon  books  and  writings  as  the  depositories  of  our  knowl- 
edge, it  is  rare  to  make  manuscript  additions  to  a  work  of  new 
facts  connected  with  its  subject.  Especially,  one  is  not  likely  to 
record  In  this  manner  facts  of  common  notoriety.  But  those 
narratives  respecting  Christ,  which  we  find  in  the  first  three  Gos- 
pels, were,  without  doubt,  such  as  the  apostles  readily  comnuuii- 
cated,  and  such,  therefore,  as  were  familiarly  known  to  their 
converts. 

IV.  Let  us  suppose,  however,  that  the  imagined  Original  Gos- 
pel, with  its  various  enlarged  copies,  may  have  existed.  Still, 
we  cannot  believe  that  the  evangelists  would  each  have  made 
use  of  such  an  enlarged  copy  of  it,  in  the  manner  supposed, 
as   the   basis  of  his   work.      According   to   the   hypothesis,   the 


496  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

additional  matter  in  the  respective  documents  used  by  them  had 
been  collected  by  a  succession  of  transcribers.  But  the  Apostle 
Matthew  would  not  have  had  recourse  to  such  indirect  and  un- 
certain authority,  for  accounts  of  acts  and  discourses  of  our 
Saviour,  which  either  he  hunself,  or  the  other  apostles,  had  seen 
and  heard.  He  would  not  have  gone  among  the  Christian  con- 
verts to  learn  from  them  what  had  been  communicated  to  thera 
by  himself  and  the  other  apostles,  concerning  the  life  of  his  Mas- 
ter, so  that  he  might  collect  materials  for  his  history.  To  admit 
the  hy.pothesis  is  to  admit,  that  he,  though  an  eye-witness  and  the 
companion  of  eye-witnesses,  chose  to  adopt  the  narratives  of 
individuals  who  had  received  their  knowledge  more  or  less  re- 
motely from  liimself,  and  from  others  like  himself.  It  is  to  sup- 
pose, that  the  information  which  had  been  derived  ftiom  apostles 
and  eye-witnesses,  after  passing  thi'ough  various  channels,  flowed 
upward  to  supply  its  source.  The  difficulty  is  essentially  the 
same  in  regard  to  Mark  and  Luke,  the  constant  companions  of 
the  apostles.  They  would  not  have  adopted  the  writings  supposed, 
as  their  main  authority.  They  would  not  have  had  recourse  to 
so  indirect  and  unsatisfactory  a  mode  of  obtaining  those  materials 
for  their  history,  which  they  might  have  received,  and  which, 
indeed,  they  could  not  but  be  continually  receiving,  at  first  hand, 
from  those  with  whom  they  were  intimately  conversant.  It  serves, 
likewise,  to  aggravate  the  improbability  of  the  supposition  in 
question,  that  each  of  the  first  three  evangelists  is  represented 
as  having  been  content  with  one  of  the  enlarged  copies  of  the 
Original  Gospel,  when  there  were,  at  least,  two  other  different 
forms  of  it  in  existence,  and  one  does  not  know  how  many  more. 
We  must  believe  them  to  have  taken  but  little  pains  to  procure 
and  compare  documents. 

V.  Ihe  supposition,  that  the  first  three  evangelists  thus  formed 
their  histories,  is,  besides,  opposed  to  Luke's  own  testimony,  and 
to  all  the  historical  evidence  which  bears  upon  the  subject.  The 
latter  evidence  is  confirmed  by  its  correspondence  with  what  we 
may  reasonably  suppose  to  have  been  the  case.  St.  Luke  thus 
speaks  in  the  commencement  of  his  Gospel:  "Since  many  have 
undertaken  to  arrange  a  narrative  of  the  events  accomplished 
among  us,  conformably  to  the  accounts  given  us  by  those  who 


CORRESPONDENCES  OF  THE  GOSPELS.      497 

were  eye-witnesses  from  the  beginning,  and  liavc  become  ministers 
of  the  rebglon,  I  have  determined  also,  having  accuratoly  in- 
formed myself  of  all  things  from  the  beginning,  to  write  to  yon, 
most  excellent  Theophilns,  a  connected  account,  that  you  may 
know  the  truth  concerning  the  relations  which  you  have  heard." 
In  these  words,  Luke  recognizes  distinctly  the  accounts  of  the 
apostles  as  the  primary  authority  for  the  history  of  Jesus.  To 
those  accounts  it  was  the  purpose  of  all  written  narratives  to  con- 
form. Having  constant  and  direct  access  to  this  j)rimary  source 
of  information,  it  was  on  this,  therefore,  that  he  relied.-  Tho 
composition  of  his  own  Gospel  shows,  that  he  was  not  satisfied 
with  any  of  the  narratives  extant  with  which  he  was  acquainted. 
They  probably  contained  more  or  less  error,  the  accounts  of  the 
apostles  having  been  misunderstood  by  the  narrator.  Luke, 
•therefore,  would  not  adopt  any  one  of  these  as  his  main  autliority. 
When  he  speaks  of  the  apostles,  with  whom  lie  was  conversant, 
as  the  sources  of  information  respecting  the  history  of  Clirist, 
and  of  his  own  diligence  in  collecting  information,  we  cannot 
believe,  that  all  he  meant  was,  that  he  had  obtained  two  of  the 
previous  documents  referred  to  by  him,  which  had  passed  through 
the  hands  of  several  transcribers,  who  had  enlarged  them  with 
new  matter ;  and  that  he  contented  himself  with  translating  the^e 
documents,  and  making  a  few  additions  and  perhaps  corrections. 

We  learn  from  Luke,  that  the  written  accounts  of  the  ministry 
of  Christ,  which  were  in  the  possession  of  some  Christians  at  the 
time  when  he  wrote,  were  founded,  directly  or  indirectly,  upon 
the  oral  accounts  of  the  apostles.  Without  such  express  infor- 
mation, we  might  have  concluded,  beforehand,  that  this  nmst  have 
been  the  fact.  The  apostles  must  have  been  continually  called 
upon  to  relate  the  actions  and  discourses  of  Christ;  and  their 
conversation  and  preaching  must  have  alforded,  to  one  conver- 
sant with  them,  authentic  materials  for  such  a  history  as  we  fmd 
in  any  of  our  first  three  Gospels.  That  such  were  the  materials 
principally  used  by  Luke,  we  may  conclude  from  what  has  been 
said.  That  Mark  thus  derived  his  information  is  stated  by  Papias, 
who  wrote,  probably,  not  more  than  about  sixty  years  after  the 
evangelist.  According  to  him,  Mark  accompanied  Peter,  who, 
it  would  appear,  was  not  able  to  use  the  Greek  language  with 
Ireedom,  as  his  interpreter;  and  wrote  down  from  memory  these 

32 


498  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

actions  and  discourses  of  Christ  which  the  apostle  had  narrated 
in  his  preaching.*  The  account  of  Irenaeus  is  the  same  :  '*  Mark," 
he  says,  "the  disciple  and  interpreter  of  Peter,  delivered  to  us 
in  writing  what  Peter  had  preached ;  and  Luke,  the  companion  of 
Paul,  recorded  the  Gospel  preached  by  him."  f  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria! and  Tertullian,§  with  other  later  fathers,  make  similar 
statements  respecting  the  Gospels  of  Mark  and  Luke.  But  it  is 
unnecessary  to  multiply  quotations ;  since  the  fact  cannot  be  dis- 
puted, that  it  is  the  uniform  testimony  of  ancient  writers,  that 
the  narratives  contained  in  the  first  three  Gospels  were  such  as 
had  been  orally  related  by  the  apostles,  and  that  Matthew  wrote 
down  what  he  had  preached,  and  Mark  and  Luke  what  they  had 
heard. 

VI.  There  are  two  aspects  under  which  the  character  of  the 
supposed  Original  Gospel  has  been  presented,  both  equally  re- 
quired by  the  hypothesis,  but  irreconcilable  with  each  other. 

On  the  one  hand,  it  appears  as  a  work  drawn  up  from  com- 
munications made  by  the  apostles,  sanctioned  by  them,  circulating 
widely  among  Christians,  so  as  very  early  to  be  translated  into 
Greek,  and  forming  the  basis  of  three  out  of  four  of  those  histo- 
ries of  Christ  which  alone  obtained  general  reception  among 
Christians  as  the  foundation  of  their  faith.  It  seems  impossible 
that  such  a  work  should  have  perished,  and  all  memory  of  it  have 
been  lost. 

But  the  hypothesis  equally  demands,  that  a  different  view 
should  be  given  of  it,  according  to  which  the  writing  in  question 
was  only  a  brief  abstract  of  some  of  the  principal  events  in 
Christ's  ministry.  It  contained  what  the  three  evangelists  have 
in  common ;  that  is,  those  passages  in  which  they  all  coincide  with 
one  another  in  presenting  the  same  sense,  though,  perhaps,  in 
different  words.  There  have  been  very  vague  notions  of  what 
may  be  called  common  in  the  contents  of  the  first  three  Gospels ; 
but  in  the  sense  just  explained,  which  is  required  by  the  hypothe- 
sis, the  matter  common  to  those  Gospels  would  not  form  a  work 
of  half  the  size  of  Mark's  Gospel.     Accordingly,  Bishop  Marsh 

•  See  before,  p.  139.  t  See  before,  p.  72.  J  See  before,  p.  78. 

§  Advers.  Marc,  lib.  iv.  c.  5,  p.  416. 


CORRESPONDENCES  OF  THE  GOSPELS.      409 

calls  the  su^^posed  document  "the  first  sketch  of  a  narrative  of 
Christ's  ministry,"*  and  says,  "It  must  not  be  considered  as  a 
finished  history,  but  as  a  document  containing  only  materials  for 
a  history ;  and,  as  those  materials  were  probably  not  all  conmiu- 
nicated  at  the  same  time,  we  must  suppose  tliat  they  were  not 
all  placed  in  exact  clu'onological  order."  f  They  are  siipposi-d 
to  have  been  in  the  order  in  which  Mark  and  Luke  coincide,  in 
opposition  to  Matthew.  According  to  Eichliorn,  it  was  a  "  rough 
sketch,"  "defective,"  "imperfect,"  "unfinished;"  to  the  text  of 
which  the  briefest  narratives  that  can  be  selected  by  comparing 
together  the  parallel  passages  of  the  first  three  Gospels,  and 
those  of  which  the  clauses  are  least  connected,  approximate  most 
nearly,  f 

Now,  as  the  former  account  of  the  book  seemed  to  make  it 
incredible  that  such  a  work  should  have  perished,  so  tiiis  last 
account  appears  to  render  it  equally  incredible  that  such  a  work 
should  have  existed.  According  to  tliis  view  of  it,  it  must  have 
been  more  like  a  collection  of  memoranda  for  a  history,  than  a 
history  itself.  No  reasonable  purpbse  of  a  work  of  this  kind  can 
be  imagined.  It  could  not  have  been  to  aid  the  memory  of  the 
apostles  and  the  first  preachers  of  Christianity,  and  their  imme- 
diate converts.  The  facts  minuted  down  in  it  were  not  likely  to 
slip  from  their  recollection.  It  could  not  have  been  to  convey 
instruction  to  those  who  had  no  other  or  no  adequate  means  of 
obtaining  a  knowledge  of  the  history  of  Jesus.  It  was  much  too 
meagre  for  this  purpose.  It  was  in  no  respect  adapted  to  such 
an  end.  It  must  have  required  a  perpetual  commentary  to  render 
it  intelligible.  Such  a  work  must  have  been  eciually  worthies! 
to  any  class  of  readers  for  whom  one  may  fancy  it  to  have  been 
intended. 

It  may  be  worth  while  to  add  the  remark,  that,  if  the  apostles 
collectively  had  been  concerned  in  the  preparation  of  any  history 
of  Jesus,  there  is  no  part  of  it  to  which  we  may  reasonably  sup- 
pose they  would  have  given  more  attention  than  to  the  narrative 
of  the  death  and  resurrection  of  their  Master.  In  regard  to 
these  events,  there  was  a  special  reason  for  comparing  together 


*  Dissertation,  p.  196.  t  Ibid.,  p.  362. 

t  Einleit.  in  d.  N.T.,  i.  1G9,  seqq.,  188. 


500  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

their  separate  knowledge,  as  different  circumstances  had  been 
witnessed  by  different  individuals.  But,  throughout  that  portion 
of  the  history  which  follows  the  apprehension  of  Jesus,  there  is 
scarcely  a  ground  for  a  pretence,  that  traces  of  a  common  docu- 
ment may  be  discovered. 

Vn.  But,  in  the  last  place,  the  hypothesis  in  question  does 
not  correspond  to,  and  explain,  the  phenomena  presented  by 
the  first  three  Gospels.  That  it  does  correspond  to  them  is  re- 
garded by  its  defenders  as  the  main  proof  of  its  truth.  If  this 
proof  fail,  therefore,  the  hypothesis  must  fall  at  once,  without  the 
pressure  of  those  objections  which  have  been  urged  against  it. 

We  may  observe,  then,  that  in  order  to  render  probable  the 
existence  of  the  supposed  Original  Gospel,  used  as  a  document 
by  the  first  three  evangelists,  we  should  be  able,  in  each  of 
their  Gospels,  to  discover  certain  portions  which  would  easily 
separate  from  the  rest  of  the  work,  and  which,  when  arranged 
in  order,  would  compose  such  a  document  as  is  imagined  to  have 
existed.  This  document,  as*  disengaged  from  each  of  the  Gos- 
pels, should  agree  with  itself  in  ideas  and  in  expression,  without 
any  other  differences  than  might  fliirly  be  accounted  for  as  in- 
tentional improvements.  The  case  should  be  "similar  in  regard 
to  those  additions  to  this  document  which  were  used  in  common 
by  any  two  of  the  evangelists.  These  results  are  what  we  might 
expect  from  the  use  supposed  of  common  written  documents. 
According  to  the  hypothesis,  their  language  was,  in  great  part, 
faithfully  copied  or  translated ;  they  resembled  the  Gospels  in 
tiieir  modes  of  conception  and  narration,  and  generally  in  their 
use  of  words ;  and  therefore  no  deviations  from  them  w^ou^d  be 
made,  except  for  what  was  esteemed  at  least  a  good  reason. 
The  coincidence  among  the  first  three  evangelists  is  thought  to 
be  such  as  can  be  accounted  for  only  by  the  supposition  of  their 
having  copied  common  written  documents.  But,  upon  this  sup- 
position, it  would  be  unreasonable  to  believe,  that  they  did 
not  uniformly  copy  those  documents,  except  where  they  found 
sufficient  cause  for  alteration.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  tran- 
scribers, who  are  imagined  to  have  intervened  between  the  com- 
position of  the  Original  Gospel  and  that  of  our  first  three  Gospels  ; 
and  to  have  gradually  enlarged  the  former  by  their  additions,  till 


CORRESPONDENCES  OF  THE  GOSPELS.      501 

it  assumed  the  throe  (IKTerent  forms  in  which  it  was  used  by  tlio 
evangelists.  They  wouhl  not  have  struck  olY  from  the  text  of 
their  fundamental  document,  a  work  of  the  hi;;hc.st  authoritv, 
into  mere  wanton  or  unimportant  variations.  If  such  a  docu- 
ment, therefore,  had  ever  existed,  and  had  been  used  as  the  basis 
of  our  first  three  Gospels,  each  of  them  would  have  contained 
it  in  something  very  like  its  original  form.  We  should  still  be 
able  to  separate  it  from  the  additional  matter  which  had  gathered 
round  it.  But,  as  has  been  before  said,  no  such  restoration  of 
the  Original  Gospel  can  be  effected.  No  such  common  docu- 
ment, serving  as  a  basis  of  each  of  the  first  three  Gospels,  can 
be  discovered  by  a  comparison  of  them  with  each  otiicr.  Yet 
the  defenders  of  the  hypothesis,  having  recognized  that  the  resto- 
ration of  the  Original  Gospel  is  essential  to  the  proof  of  its  ever 
having  existed,  have  spoken  as  if  this  restoration  might  be,  and 
had  been,  effected. 

Eichhorn  affirms,  that,  by  comparing  the  first  three  Gospels 
together,  "we  are  able,  even  now,  to  separate  the  earlier  Life 
of  Jesus  (the  Original  Gospel)  from  all  subsequent  additions, 
and,  collecting  it  out  of  those  Gospels,  to  restore  it  again  free 
from  all  the  traditions  of  later  times ;  "  *  and  he  himself  under- 
takes its  restoration,  f  Bishop  Marsh  says  respecting  Eichhorn's 
attempt,  that  "he  has  investigated  the  contents  of  the  assumed 
original  document  as  it  existed  in  its  primitive  state." — "The 
principle  which  he  adopts  in  this  investigation  is  the  following: 
that  all  those  portions  which  are  common  to  all  three  evangelists 
were  originally  contained  in  the  common  document." — "Hence, 
according  to  Eichhorn,  the  original  document  contained  the  fol- 
lowing sections,  which  are  common  to  all  the  three  evangelists." 
He  then  gives  a  table  of  the  contents  of  forty-two  sections  (after- 
wards enlarged  by  Eichhorn  to  forty-four),  in  which  the  evan- 
gelists relate,  in  common,  the  same  transactions ;  and  adds : 
"  These  were  the  contents,  according  to  Eichhorn's  hypothesis, 
of  the  original  document  supposed  to  have  been  used  by  St. 
Matthew,  St.  Mark,  and  St.  Luke.  They  contain  a  short  but 
well-connected  representation  of  the  principal  transactions  of 
Christ,  from  his  baptism  to  his  death ;  they  are  such  as  might  bo 

*  Einleit.  in  d.  N.T.,  i.  145.  t  Ibid.,  i.  pp.  186-304. 


502  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

expected  in  the  first  sketcli  of  a  narrative  of  Christ's  ministry."  * 
This  language  is  exceedingly  vague ;  since,  in  the  forty-two  or 
forty-four  sections  of  Eichhorn,  the  parallel  passages  of  the  three 
evangelists  vary  much  from  each  other,  and  it  cannot  be  deter- 
mined, therefore,  what  Bishop  Marsh  meant  by  "portions  com- 
mon to  all  three  evangelists,"  or  what  he  asserts  to  have  been 
the  contents  of  the  original  document.  Elsev/here  he  affirms, 
that  '*  the  whole  of  the  document  in  its  primitive  state  was  [is] 
contained  in  each  of  the  Gospels  of  St.  Matthew,  St.  Mark,  and 
St.  Luke."  f  Eichhorn's  general  notion  is,  that,  through  a  com- 
parison of  the  parallel  passages  of  the  first  three  Gospels,  we  may 
disengage  a  brief  original  narrative,  the  common  basis  of  all,  by 
taking  only  those  parts  of  such  passages  as  are  common  to  all, 
and  combining  them  together.  But  his  attempt  to  'accomplish 
this,  if  the  design  were  not  avowed,  might  be  considered  as  an 
argument  to  prove  its  impracticability.  Of  this,  however,  no 
other  proof  is  necessary  than  what  any  concordance  of  the  Gos- 
pels may  furnish.  The  passages  of  the  three  evangelists,  which 
are  coincident  or  equivalent,  in  that  strict  sense  of  the  terms 
which  reasoning  on  this  subject  requires,  are  too  few,  and  too 
much  broken  into  fragments,  to  serve  for  the  construction  of 
an  Original  Gospel.  The  fact  may  be  considered  as  acknowl- 
edged by  Eichhorn  himself  in  the  very  commencement  of  his 
undertaking;  for  he  says,  "We  are  seldom  able  to  determine,  as 
to  the  words,  how  much  originally  belonged  to  the  primitive  text, 
since  we  are  acquainted  with  it  only  through  translations  "  (the 
Original  Gospel  having  been  written  in  Hebrew,  while  our  present 
Gospels  are  in  Greek).  "We  must  almost  always  be  content 
with  determining  which  of  the  evangelists  retains  it  in  the  purest 
state."  X  The  mention  of  translations  in  this  passage  is  one  of 
those  insertions  of  an  irrelevant  thought  by  which  a  writer  con- 
fuses his  conceptions,  and  disguises  them  from  himself  and  others. 
What  is  required  for  the  proposed  restoration  of  the  Original 
Gospel  is,  that  certain  passages  should  be  selected  from  each 


*  Dissertation,  pp.  192-196. 

t  Defence  of  the  Illustration,  p.  38.     See  also  a  passage  to  the  same 
effect,  quoted  from  him  before,  on  p.  492. 
t  Einleit.  in  d.  N.T.,  i.  188. 


CORRESPONDENCES  OF  THE  GOSPELS.      503 

of  the  three  Gospels,  eqvivalent  in  their  direct  meaninf)  to  passaji^ea 
that  may  be  selected  from  the  other  two,  and  capahlc  of  being 
put  together  into  a  regular  narrative  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus. 
If  in  each  of  the  Gospels  were  incorporated  a  correct  transla- 
tion of  such  a  narrative,  this  might  easily  be  done. 

B)it  all  that  has  been  actually  performed  is  little  more  than 
the  simple  operation  of  distinguishing  the  parallel  passages  of  the 
first  three  Gospels,  and  then  arranging  in  a  table  the  titles  of 
their  subjects,  in  the  order  of  iSIark  and  Luke.  The  Original 
Gospel,  it  is  concluded,  consisted  of  accounts  of  facts  and  dis- 
courses, related  in  those  passages,  arranged  in  this  order.  But 
no  one  will  pretend,  when  the  statement  is  brought  distinctly  to 
this  point,  that  there  may  be  found  in  each  Gospel  a  series  of 
words  coincident  in  meaning  with  a  similar  series  to  be  found  in 
each  of  the  other  two,  which  may  therefore  be  considered  as 
representing  the  text  of  the  Original  Gospel.  The  error  has 
been  in  considering  as  common  to  the  three  Gospels  narratives 
different  from  each  other,  because  they  relate  in  coumion  to  the 
same  events.  Identity  of  subject  has  been  confounded  with 
identity  of  form  and  circumstance. 

The  accounts  in  the  first  three  Gospels,  which  relate  to  the 
same  events,  are  in  no  case  strictly  the  same.  They  are  corre- 
sponding accounts,  resembling  each  other  more  or  less  closely, 
sometimes  presenting  very  striking  coincidences,  and,  at  other 
times,  diverging  into  real  or  apparent  discrepances.  Throughout 
those  writings,  the  narratives  of  the  same  events  present  such 
variations  from  each  other  as  show,  that  the  authors  of  the 
Gospels  did  not  respectively  copy  them  from  the  same  written 
archetype,  but  were  independent  narrators.  To  this  fact  we  will 
now  attend. 

To  the  supposition,  that  any  one  of  the  first  three  evangelists 
copied  from  either  of  the  others,  it  has  been  considered  as  a 
stronf^  objection,  that  in  this  case,  when  we  find  differences  in 
the  relation  of  the  same  events,  we  must  view  them  as  intentional 
alterations,  that  often  no  purpose  of  such  alterations  can  bo 
discovered,  and,  consequently,  it  is  improbable  that  they  would 
intentionally  be  made.  But  it  does  not  seem  to  have  been 
observed,  that  the  hypothesis  of  a  common  document  is  exposed 


604 


ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 


equally  to  this  objection.  We  can  no  more  account  for  the 
variations  of  the  evangelists  from  the  text  of  the  Original  Gospel, 
than,  upon  the  other  supposition,  we  can  account  for  their  varia- 
tions one  from  another.  If  it  be  said,  that  the  alterations  in 
question  were  not  made  by  the  evangelists,  but  by  that  series  of 
transcribers  who  are  imagined  to  have  intervened  between  the 
composition  of  the  Original  Gospel  and  that  of  our  first  three 
Gospe;ls,  this  is  merely  throwing  back  the  difficulty,  Avithout 
removing  it.  The  objection  is,  not  that  these  alterations  were 
made  by  any  particular  individuals,  but  that  they  were  made  at 
all.  At  the  same  time,  if  it  be  supposed  that  those  previous 
transcribers  made  wanton  or  unreasonable  changes  in  the  text 
•which  they  were  copying,  the  authority  of  their  copies  is  still 
further  diminished ;  and  it  becomes  still  more  improbable,  that 
these  copies  should  have  been  used  by  the  evangelists  in  the 
manner  supposed. 

It  is  to  be  observed,  that  it  is  not  the  importance  of  the  changes 
from  the  text  of  the  original  document,  that  one  or  more  of  the 
evangelists  must  have  made  or  adopted,  which  is  the  point  to  be 
considered;  because,  for  important  changes,  a  reason  might  exist: 
but  that  it  is  the  trifling  nature  of  many  of  these  variations  which 
renders  it  improbable  that  they  would  have  been  made.  With 
these  views,  let  us  compare  together  the  different  accounts  of 
the  cure  of  Peter's  wife's  mother,  and  of  many  others  at  Caper- 
naum, as  related  by  the  three  evangelists. 


Matt.  viii.  14-16. 

And  Jesus,  going  to 
the  house  of  Peter, 


SA-W  his  wife's  mother 
lying  sick  with  a  fe- 
ver. 

And  he  touched  her 
hand,  and  the  fever 
left  her;  and  she  rose 


Mark  i.  29-34. 

And  immediately, 
upon  their  going  out 
of  the  synagogue,  they 
went  to  the  house  of 
Simon  and  Andrew, 
with  James  and  John. 
And  Simon's  wife's 
mother  lay  sick  with  a 
fever;  and  they  imme- 
diately spoke  to  him 
about  her.  And  he 
went  to  her,  and  raised 
her  up,  taking  hold  of 


Luke  iv.  38-41. 

And,  leaving  the 
synagogue,  he  entered 
the    house   of    Simon. 


And  Simon's  wife's 
mother  was  laboring 
under  a  great  fever. 
And  they  entreated  hira 
for  her  sake.  And, 
standing  over  her,  he 
rebuked  the  fever,  and 


CORRESPONDENCES  OP  THE  GOSPELS. 


505 


Matt.  viii.  14-16. 
up,  and  attended  upon 
them. 


And,  when  it  was 
evening,  they  brought 
to  him  many  demoni- 
acs; and  he  cast  out 
the  spirits  with  a  word, 
and  healed  all  those 
irho  were  diseased. 


Mark  i.  29-34. 
her  hand ;  and  the  fever 
immediately    left    her, 
and  she  attended  upon 
them. 

And  when  it  was 
evening,  the  sun  hav- 
ing set,  they  brought 
to  him  all  who  were 
diseased,  and  the  de- 
moniacs. And  the 
whole  city  was  col- 
lected about  the  door. 
And  he  healed  many 
who  were  sick  with  va- 
rious diseases,  and  cast 
out  many  demons.  And 
he  did  not  suffer  the  de- 
mons to  speak,  because 
they  knew  him. 


Luke  iv.  38-41. 
it  left  her;  and,  rising: 
up  directly,  she  attend- 
ed upon  them. 

And,  when  the  sun 
had  set,  all  who  had 
with  them  persons  ill 
with  various  disease;* 
brought  them  to  hira; 
and  he  laid  his  hands 
upon  every  one  of  them, 
and  healed  them.  And 
demons  departed  from 
many,  crying  out,  and 
saying,  Thou  art  the 
Son  of  God.  And  he 
rebuked  them,  and  did 
not  allow  them  to  speak, 
because  they  knew  him 
to  be  the  Messiah. 


If  we  imagine  an  original  narrative  as  the  basis  of  these  three 
ai:t;ounts,  it  is  evident,  that  two  at  least  of  the  evangelists,  or 
their  predecessors,  must  have  varied  from  it  in  a  manner  for 
which  no  satisfactory  reason  can  be  given.  It  will  simplify  our 
language  on  the  subject,  and  the  result  of  the  argument  will  be 
the  same,  to  speak  of  these  variations  as  made  by  the  evangelists 
themselves. 

It  is  not  probable,  then,  that  Matthew,  if  he  had  found  the 
name  of  Simon  in  a  document  sanctioned  by  the  other  apostles, 
would  have  altered  it  to  Peter;  or  that  Mark  or  Luke  would 
have  changed  Peter  to  Simon.  If  the  written  account,  which 
Luke  was  following,  had  simply  said,  that  Peter's  wife's  mother 
was  lying  sick  with  a  fever,  there  is  no  likelihood  that  he  would 
have  changed  the  expression,  so  as  to  say,  that  she  was  "labor- 
ing under  a  great  fever;"  or,  if  this  had  been  the  original 
statement,  no  reason  can  be  given  why  Matthew  and  Mark  should 
have  substituted  words  less  strong.  With  a  written  account  for 
their  guide,  neither  Mark  nor  Luke  would  have  thought  it  neces- 
sary to  insert  the  circumstance,  that  her  friends  requested  the 
miraculous  aid  of  Jesus.     Nor,  if  this  had  stood  in  the  original 


506  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

narrative,  could  there  have  been  any  cause  for  the  omission  of 
it  by  Matthew.  "And  he  touched  her  hand,"  says  Matthew; 
*'  And  he  went  to  her,  and  raised  her  up,  taking  hold  of  her 
hand,"  says  Mark;  "And,  standing  over  her,  he  rebuked  the 
fever,"  says  Luke :  whichever  of  these  may  be  fancied  the  ori- 
ginal expression,  it  would  be  difficult  to  suggest  a  cause,  why 
two  of  the  evangelists  changed  it  for  another.  Luke  says, 
"And  he  rebuked  the  fever,"  which  words  are  neither  in 
Matthew  nor  in  Mark ;  yet  they  are  not  likely  to  have  been 
inserted  by  Luke,  or  to  have  been  omitted  by  the  other  two 
evangelists  in  transcribing  from  the  supposed  document.  Nor 
would  Mark,  I  think,  if  he  had  been  copying  a  previous  account, 
have  Interposed  his  favorite  word  "  immediately"  three  times,  in 
go  short  a  narrative.* 

In  the  account  of  the  cures  performed  in  the  evening,  Mark 
and  Luke  add  circumstances  not  mentioned  by  Matthew,  —  re- 
specting the  crowd  about  the  door,  the  exclamations  of  the 
demoniacs,  and  the  silence  imposed  on  them  by  Jesus ;  but, 
in  regard  to  these  circumstances,  there  is  no  appearance,  that 
the  two  evangelists  used  any  common  written  authority.  Nor 
is  any  solution  to  be  given  of  their  other  variations  in  this 
account,  from  Matthew  and  from  each  other^  upon  the  suppo- 
sition, that  a  narrative  of  the  supposed  Original  Gospel  was 
taken  by  each  as  the  basis  of  his  own. 

I  have  selected  this  example  merely  for  its  brevity.  It  may 
serve  as  a  specimen  of  those  appearances  which  run  through  all 
the  parallel  passages  of  the  three  evangelists,  and  which  show 
that  they  did  not  transcribe  or  translate  from  any  common  written 
document,  because,  upon  this  supposition,  the  passages  must  be 
regarded  as  presenting  evident  variations  from  the  text  of  that 
document,  which  it  is  not  to  be  believed  that  any  copyist,  and 
especially  copyists  like  the  evangelists,  would  have  made.  I 
will  give  a  single  other  specimen,  without  any  critical  remarks 
upon  it,  which,  like  the  former,  I  select  for  its  shortness. 


*  The  word  evdicj^,  immediately,  occurs,  according  to  Schmidt's  Con- 
cordance, forty  times  in  Mark's  Gospel;  that  is,  as  many  times  as  in  all 
the  other  books  of  the  New  Testament. 


CORRESPONDENCES  OF  THE  GOSPELS. 


507 


Matt.  xii.  46-50. 
And  while  he  was 
yet  addressing  the  mul- 
titude, lo!  his  mother 
and  kinsmen  stood  with- 
out, wishing  to  speak 
with  him. 

And  some  one  said  to 
him,  Lo!  thy  mother 
and  kinsmen  stand 
without,  wishing  to 
speak  with  thee.  But 
he  answered  him  who 
told  him.  Who  is  my 
mother?  and  who  are 
my  kinsmen  ?  And, 
stretching  forth  his 
hand  toward  his  dis- 
ciples, he  said,  Lo!  my 
mother  and  my  kins- 
men !  For  whoever 
may  do  the  will  of  my 
Father  in  heaven  is 
my  kinsman,  and  kins- 
woman, and  mother. 


Mark  iii.  31-35. 
Then  his  mother 
and  his  kinsmen  came, 
and,  standing  without, 
sent  to  him  to  call  him. 
And  the  multitude  were 
sitting  round  him;  and 
some  said  to  him,  Lo! 
thy  mother  and  kins- 
men and  kinswomen 
are  without,  wishing 
for  thee.  And  he  an- 
swered them,  Who  is 
my  mother?  or  my 
kinsmen?  And, looking 
round  upon  those  who 
were  sitting  about  him, 
he  said.  Behold!  my 
mother  and  my  kins- 
men !  For  whoever 
may  do  the  will  of 
God  is  my  kinsman, 
and  kinswoman,  and 
mother. 


Luke  viii.  19-21. 

Then  his  mother  and 
kinsmen  came  to  where 
he  was,  and  were  not 
able  to  get  to  him  for  the 
crowd.  And  this  was 
told  him  by  some  who 
said.  Thy  mother  and 
kinsmen  stand  without, 
desirous  to  see  thee. 
But  he  answered  them 


My  mother  and  my 
kinsmen  are  those  who 
hear  the  teaching  of 
God,  and  obey  it. 


**The  difference  of  expression,"  says  Eichhom,  **and  the 
identity  of  the  ti-ain  of  thought,  assure  us  that  we  here  read 
three  different  Greek  translations  of  the  same  Hebrew  text."  * 
It  is  evident,  that,  in  this  remark,  resemblance  and  general 
equivalence  of  ideas  are  confounded  with  identity.  The  passages 
present  no  appearances,  which  do  not  accord  with  the  suppo- 
sition, that  each  of  the  evangelists,  independently  of  any  written 
document,  was  recording,  conformably  to  his  own  conception 
of  it,  a  well-known  transaction,  that  had  been  often  orally  re- 
lated; but  it  is  impossible,  that  their  three  varying  accounts 
should  have  been  founded  upon  one  original  written  narrative, 
from  which  its  transcribers  and  translators  did  not  depart  with- 
out some  reasonable  motive. 

We  proceed  to  another  consideration.    The  verbal  coincidencea 


Einleit.  in  d.  N.T..  i.  248. 


508  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

between  Mark  and  Luke  are  supposed  to  have  been  produced  by 
the  circumstance,  that,  in  translating  the  same  Hebrew  docu- 
ment, both  evangelists  derived  assistance  from  a  Greek  transla- 
tion of  it,  which  had  been  made  before  the  composition  of  their 
works.  But  the  verbal  coincidence  between  Mark  and  Luke 
is  not  great.  It  consists,  for  the  most  part,  of  single  clauses  or 
sentences,  rarely  extending  unbroken  through  two  whole  sen- 
tences together.  It  amounts  in  all  to  less  than  the  twelfth  part 
of  Mark's  Gospel.  A  similar  objection,  therefore,  to  that  which 
we  have  just  been  considering,  presents  itself  to  this  supposition. 
It  requires,  to  render  it  probable,  much  more  identity  of  language 
than  exists  between  the  evangelists,  unless  we  imagine  them  to 
have  departed,  without  reason,  from  their  common  help,  the 
former  Greek  translation.  It  represents  both  the  eyangelists  as 
going  through  this  Greek  translation,  picking  out  a  few  sentences 
and  clauses  of  sentences  here  and  there,  and  these,  as  far  as  we 
can  judge,  the  renderings  of  passages  that  offered  no  peculiar 
difficulty,  and,  after  copying  perhaps  a  dozen  words,  resuming 
their  own  language.  The  evangelists  would  not  have  had  re- 
course to  a  translation  so  defective  as  to  afford  them  such  scanty 
assistance. 

I  will  mention  one  other  characteristic  of  the  Gospels,  which 
seems  wholly  irreconcilable  with  the  hypothesis  we  are  consider- 
ing. It  is  the  uniform  and  distinguishing  style  of  conception, 
narration,  and  language  apparent  in  each.  The  Gospel  of  Luke, 
according  to  the  hypothesis,  must  be  a  compound  of  materials 
furnished  by  at  least  five  different  writers,  —  the  author  of  the 
Original  Gospel,  the  compiler  who  made  the  additions  to  it  which 
Luke  has  in  common  with  Matthew  alone,  the  compiler  who  made 
the  additions  which  he  has  in  common  with  Mark  alone,  the 
author  of  the  imagined  Gnomologia,  and  himself.  I  mention 
Luke's  Gospel  as  the  more  striking  case,  because  we  have  this 
in  the  original ;  whereas  Matthew's  Gospel,  being  extant  only  in 
a  translation,  there  is  one  particular,  its  uniformity  in  the  use 
of  language,  from  which  we  cannot  argue  with  the  same  con- 
fidence. But  Matthew's  Gospel  is  distinguished  by  other  well 
defined  features,  though,  according  to  the  hypothesis,  it  was 
composed  of  as  various  materials  as  those  of  Luke's  Gospel.     So 


CORRESPONDENCES  OP  THE  GOSPELS.      509 

also  was  that  of  Mark,  except  that  he  is  not  thought  to  have 
used  the  Onomologia.  But  throughout  each  of  the  Gospels, 
except  in  the  account  of  the  miraculous  conception  by  Luke,  of 
which  I  have  already  spoken,  and  in  some  few  passages,  before 
noticed,  which  lie  under  the  suspicion  of  being  spurious,  there 
is  no  diversity  of  character  betraying  the  work  of  different  hands. 
The  uniform  texture  of  each  Gospel  shows  it  not  to  be  a  piece 
of  patchwork.  Each  proves  itself  to  be  the  production  of  a 
single  writer,  by  discovering  throughout  the  workings  of  an  in- 
dividual mind. 

Notwithstanding,  therefore,  the  ingenuity  and  labor  with  which 
the  hypothesis  in  question  has  been  defended,  I  believe  the  objec- 
tions to  which  it  is  exposed  occur,  in  a  more  or  less  definite  form, 
to  almost  every  one  who  has  examined  it.  It  supposes  an  Origi- 
nal Gospel,  sanctioned  by  the  apostles ;  yet,  had  such  a  work 
existed,  we  cannot  believe,  that,  even  if  the  Hebrew  original  had 
perished,  its  Greek  translation  would  have  been  lost,  and  no 
memory  of  the  book  remain.  It  supposes  this  book  to  have 
been  treated  in  a  manner  without  a  parallel  in  literary  history, 
and  wholly  inconsistent  with  the  authority  which  must  have  been 
ascribed  to  it.  It  implies  a  solicitude  about  the  finishing  and 
refashioning  of  writings,  altogether  inconsistent  with  the  char- 
acter and  habits  of  the  Jews  of  Palestine.  It  requires  us  to 
believe,  that  the  evangelists  copied  into  their  histories  the  col- 
lections of  anonymous  individuals ;  when  one  of  them  was  an 
eye-witness  of  the  events  which  he  related,  and  the  other  two  were 
in  habits  of  continual  intercourse  with  those  who,  like  him, 
were  the  primary  sources  of  information  respecting  the  history 
of  Jesus,  and  the  business  of  whose  lives  was  to  afford  this 
information  to  others.  It  is  inconsistent  with  the  account  which 
Luke  gives  of  the  manner  in  which  he  procured  the  materials 
for  his  Gospel,  and  with  the  historical  notices  which  we  have  of 
the  composition  of  the  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Mark,  —  notices 
which,  so  far  as  they  represent  these  Gospels  as  containing  what 
the  apostles  had  before  delivered  orally,  are  confirmed  by  their 
intrinsic  probability.  And  it  fails  of  its  proposed  object.  It 
does  not  explain  the  phenomena  of  the  agreement  and  disagree- 
ment of  the  first  three  Gospels ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is 


610  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

wholly  irreconcilable  with  the  appearances  those  Gospels  present. 
For  it  supposes,  that  an  original  document  was  so  used  as  the 
basis  of  the  first  three  Gospels,  that  it  is  still  preserved  in  each ; 
while,  in  fact,  no  such  document  can  be  discovered.  On  the 
contrary,  in  the  unsuccessful  attempts  made  to  restore  this  docu- 
ment, it  becomes  necessary  to  represent  it  as  so  brief,  defec- 
tive, and  unsatisfactory,  that  we  cannot  believe  such  a  work 
existed,  because  we  can  discern  no  purpose  for  which  it  could 
have  been  intended.  The  hypothesis  implies,  that  the  corre- 
spondences of  the  three  Gospels  may  be  separated  from  their 
differences  by  a  sort  of  mechanical  process,  so  that  the  former 
may  afterward  be  brought  together  and  form  a  connected  whole ; 
while,  in  fact,  the  one  and  the  other  "are  blended  so  intimately 
as  continually  to  appear  together  in  the  same  narrative.  In 
attempting  to  account  for  the  correspondences  of  these  books 
with  each  other,  it  presents  a  solution  which  requires  much  more 
correspondence  than  exists.  And,  in  the  last  place,  the  number 
of  writers  whom  it  represents  as  contributing  materials  for  the 
Gospels  is  irreconcilable  with  the  individuality  of  character  evi- 
dent in  each  of  them. 

Section  IV. 

Proposed  Explanation  of  the  Correspondences  among  the  First 
Tliree  Gospels. 

What  account,  then,  is  to  be  given  of  the  striking  corre- 
spondences, in  matter  and  language,  which  exist  among  the  first 
three  Gospels?  I  answer,  that  the  phenomenon  may,  I  think, 
be  explained  by  the  following  considerations :  — 

The. discourses  of  the  apostles  and  first  preachers  of  Christianity 
must  have  consisted,  in  great  part,  of  narratives  concerning  the 
life  of  Jesus.  In  calling  men  to  receive  his  religion,  they  must 
have  made  known  to  them  Avho  he  was,  what  he  had  done,  and 
what  he  had  taught  and  commanded.  All  the  information  which 
we  now  derive  from  the  first  three  Gospels  must  have  been  orally 
communicated  by  them  over  and  over  again.  They  must  have 
related  his  miracles,  to  show  on  what  grounds  he  claimed  divine 


CORRESPONDENCES  OF  THE  GOSPELS.      511 

authority;  and  the  other  events  of  liis  life,  to  illustrate  his  charac- 
ter. In  teaching  their  disciples,  they  would  quote  his  own  words, 
as  the  most  authoritative  expression  of  the  truths  which  he  made 
known,  and  as  affording  the  most  satisfactory  information  respect- 
ing his  doctrines  and  commands.  In  these  words  of  Jesus  his 
religion  was  embodied ;  they  dwelt  in  the  minds  and  hearts  of  his 
apostles ;  they  would  be  continually  on  their  lips  ;  and,  in  quoting 
them  for  the  instruction  of  their  converts,  they  would  often  be  led 
to  relate  the  occasion  on  which  they  were  uttered. 

By  far  the  greater  part  of  our  Lord's  ministry  had  been  passed 
at  a  distance  from  Jerusalem,  either  in  Galilee  or  elsewhere ; 
accounts  of  it  had  been  brouglit  to  that  city  only  by  report,  and 
had,  doubtless,  been  mixbd  with  many  errors,  through  the  mis- 
takes and  overheated  imaginations  of  one  class  of  relaters,  and 
the  bitter  prejudices  of  another.  At  Jerusalem  the  twelve  apos- 
tles generally  resided  for  some  years  after  Christ's  ascension ;  and 
it  must  have  been  one  main  part  of  their  duty  to  present  to  those 
who  were  Avilling  to  listen  a  true  account  of  their  Master's  actions, 
in  contradiction  to  such  false  reports  as  had  prevailed. 

Another  cause,  which  must  have  led  the  apostles  to  nan*ate 
events  in  the  life  of  their  Master,  was  their  applying  to  him  pas- 
sages in  the  Old  Testament  Avhich  they  regarded  as  prophetical. 
In  doing  so,  they  must  have  given  an  account  of  the  facts  to  which 
they  believed  such  passages  to  relate.  The  applications  of  sup- 
posed prophecies,  that  we  find  in  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  would 
be  unintelligible  without  the  narratives  with  which  they  are  con- 
nected ;  and  the  same  would  equally  be  the  case  with  an  oral  as 
with  a  written  discourse. 

But,  in  speaking  of  the  occasions  which  must  have  continually 
led  the  apostles  and  first  preachers  of  Christianity  to  give  accounts 
of  the  ministry  of  Jesus,  we  must  not  forget  the  intense  curiosity 
that  would  be  felt,  by  all  but  his  determined  enemies,  respecting 
the  wonderful  transactions  of  his  life  ;  and  the  deep  interest  which 
every  true  convert  to  his  religion  must  have  had  to  learn  what 
might  be  known  concerning  him,  and  to  be  able,  upon  the  highest 
authority,  to  separate  the  truth  from  falsehood.  The  apostles, 
and  other  eye-witnesses  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus,  possessed  knowl- 
edge of  the  greatest  curiosity  and  interest ;  they  were  most  ready 
to  communicate  it ;    and  there  can  be  no  doubt,  that  they  were 


512  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

often  called  upon  to  make  such  communication,  or,  in  other 
words,  that  they  often  had  occasion  to  repeat  narratives  of  the 
same  events  which  we  now  find  recorded  in  the  first  three  Gos- 
pels. 

It  was  required  in  an  apostle,  that  he  should  have  been  a  com- 
panion of  Jesus  during  his  ministry,  "  from  the  baptism  of  John 
to  that  day  on  which  he  was  taken  up ;  "  and  the  ground  of  this 
requisition  evidently  was,  that  an  apostle  must  be  one  who  was 
able  to  state  upon  his  own  knowledge  the  events  in  the  public  life 
of  his  Master.  Thus  St.  John  says  to  those  whom  he  addressed 
in  his  Epistle:  "What  took  place  from  the  beginning,  what  we 
have  heard,  what  we  have  seen  with  our  eyes,  what  Ave  have  be- 
held, and  our  hands  have  handled,  concerning  the  life-giving 
doctrine,  —  for  Life  has  been  revealed,  and  we  saw  and  bear  tes- 
timony, and  announce  to  you  that  Eternal  Life  which  was  with 
the  Father,  and  has  been  revealed  to  us, — what  we  have  seen 
and  heard,  we  announce  to  you,  so  that  you  may  share  with  us." 
And  St.  Luke,  whose  words  may  again  be  quoted,  in  commencing 
his  Gospel,  refers  directly  to  the  sources,  and  the  only  sources, 
from  which  an  authentic  written  narrative  of  the  life  of  Jesus 
could  be  derived:  "Since  many,"  he  says,  "have  undertaken  to 
arrange  a  narrative  of  the  events  accomplished  among  us,  con- 
formably to  the  accounts  given  us  by  those  who  were  eye-witnesses 
from  the  beginning,  and  have  become  ministers  of  the  religion,  I 
have  determined  also,  having  accurately  informed  myself  of  all 
things  from  the  beginning,  to  write  to  you,  most  excellent 
Theophilus,  a  connected  account,  that  you  may  know  the  truth 
concerning  the  relations  which  you  have  heard."  *     Luke's  own 

*  Different  interpreters  have  understood  some  of  the  expressions  in  this 
passage  in  different  ways,  but  with  variations  that  do  not  affect  the  main 
purpose  for  which  I  have  quoted  it.  I  have  adopted  that  sense  of  the  words 
which  seems  to  me  most  probable.  In  the  last  clause,  my  rendering  is  dif- 
ferent from  any  that  I  recollect  to  have  seen  ("that  you  may  know  the 
truth  concerning  the  relations  you  have  heard").  Most  modern  expositors 
agree  in  effect  with  the  Common  Version,  in  understanding  St.  Luke  as 
meaning,  "  that  thou  mightest  know  the  certainty  of  those  things  wherein 
thou  hast  been  instructed;"  that  is,  that  thou  mightest  know  that  they  are 
certain.  But  the  words  of  Luke  are,  Iva  eKtyvu)^  nept  uv  KaT7]XT/dT]g  Viyi^v 
T7V  ao^iikuav ;  and  I  conceive  /loytjv  in  the  genitive  to  depend  upon  Trep?, 


CORRESPONDENCES  OP  THE  GOSPELS.      513 

Gospel,  and  all  the  other  compilations  which  he  mentions,  were, 
according  to  him,  founded  upon  information  derived  from  the 
apostles,  and  perhaps  other  preachers  of  the  religion,  who  hud 
been  eye-witnesses  of  the  ministry  of  Clirist ;  that  is,  upon  their  oral 
narratives.  This  source  was  always  open ;  and,  from  the  nature 
of  the  case,  any  account  of  Christ's  ministry  by  a  Christian, 
written  in  the  apostolic  age,  must  have  been  intended  to  embody 
such  narratives, — the  narratives  of  those  who  alone  could  bear 
personal  testimony  to  the  facts  related ;  narratives  which,  we 
cannot  doubt,  had  been  orally  communicated  many  times  before 
they  were  committed  to  writing  by  any  one  of  the  evangelists. 

In  confirmation  of  the  supposition,  that  those  narratives  con- 
cerning Jesus,  which  we  now  find  in  the  three  Gospels,  were  first 
orally  communicated  by  the  apostles,  and  preserved  in  the  mem- 
ory of  their  disciples,  it  is  superfluous  to  appeal  to  the  custom  of 
the  Jewish  Rabbis,  who  communicated  their  traditions  orally  to 
their  disciples,  and  required  that  they  should  be  committed  to 
memory.  These  traditions  formed  an  amount  of  matter  which, 
in  the  age  of  the  apostles,  probably  exceeded,  very  many  times, 

and  not  upon  ao^ukeLav.  The  obvious  meaning  of  St.  Luke,  if  his  words 
are  to  be  thus  constructed,  is,  that  he  wrote  in  order  that  Theophilus  might 
know  Tr/v  ua(puXetav,  "  what  was  to  be  relied  upon,"  that  is,  "the  truth,"  in 
relation  to  the  accounts  he  had  heard.  This  meaning  seems  best  to  suit  the 
context.  A  proper  cause  is  assigned  for  the  composition  of  an  accurate  his- 
tory'- by  one  who  had  diligently  inquired  into  the  facts;  while,  if  the 
object  of  Luke  had  only  been  to  assure  Theopliilus  of  the  certainty  of  what 
he  had  already  heard,  it  may  seem  that  his  simple  affirmation  would  have 
been  most  to  the  purpose.  To  an  unbeliever  or  a  sceptic  of  those  times,  the 
mere  history  of  Luke  would  have  afforded  no  new  evidence.  A  believer,  as 
there  is  no  reasonable  doubt  that  Theophilus  was,  had  been  already  con- 
vinced of  the  truth  of  Christianity ;  and  if  the  term  Xoyoi  is,  as  I  conceive, 
to  be  understood  in  the  sense  of  "  narratives  "  respecting  the  life  of  Christ, 
St.  Luke  surely  did  not  mean  to  vouch  for  the  truth  of  all  that  Theopliilus 
might  have  heard.  Many  incorrect  and  false  accounts  respecting  Christ 
must  have  been  in  circulation  in  the  times  of  the  apostles,  —  accounts 
which  first  were  contradicted  by  their  oral  narratives,  and  afterwards  by  the 
written  narratives  of  the  evangelists;  and  it  is,  I  think,  a  want  of  attention 
to  this  fact  which  has  prevented  the  words  of  Luke  from  being  correctly 
understood 

83 


514  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

the  contents  of  any  one  of  the  Gospels.  Other  historical  parallels, 
as  they  are  called,  have  been  suggested.  But  it  implies  a  very 
hnperfect  comprehension  of  the  state  of  mind  which  must  have 
existed  in  the  apostles  and  their  disciples,  to  suppose,  that  their 
remembrance  of  the  events  in  the  life  of  Jesus  depended  upon  an 
effort  of  recollection.  Their  strongest  and  holiest  feelings  were 
associated  with  those  events ;  the  vivid  memory  of  them  was  for 
ever  present  to  their  minds,  their  spring  of  action  by  day,  and 
their  meditation  by  night.  We  must  not  suppose,  that  the  narra- 
tive of  events  the  most  wonderful  that  man  ever  witnessed,  and  of 
words  the  most  weighty  that  man  ever  heard,  was  taught  and 
learnt  like  a  schoolboy's  task  or  the  traditions  of  the  Rabbis. 
From  the  manner  in  Avhich  the  Rabbis  taught,  we  learn  only  that 
the  Jews  were  accustomed  to  oral  instruction,  and  hence  may 
more  readily  familiarize  ourselves  with  the  conception,  that  long 
portions  of  the  history  of  Christ,  or  perhaps  a  general  account 
of  his  ministry,  were  sometimes  orally  communicated  by  the  apos- 
tles at  once. 

The  business  of  the  apostles  and  first  teachers  of  Christianity 
was  to  preach  Christ,  to  make  him  known.  To  him  they  constantly 
directed  the  view  of  their  disciples.  What  he  taught  was  the 
religion  of  which  they  were  the  ministers  ;  his  miracles  were  proofs 
of  its  divinity ;  his  virtues  were  held  forth  by  them  as  the  example 
after  which  his  followers  were  to  form  themselves.  As  religious 
instructors,  they  taught  nothing  upon  their  own  authority.  The 
Gospels  are  not  now  more  essential  to  our  knowledge  of  Chris- 
tianity, than  must  have  been  their  oral  accounts  of  Jesus  to  the 
first  converts. 

We  conclude,  then,  that  portions  of  the  history  of  Jesus,  longer 
or  shorter,  were  often  related  by  the  apostles ;  and  it  is  evident, 
that  the  narrative,  at  each  repetition  by  the  same  individual,  would 
become  more  fixed  In  Its  form,  so  as  soon  to  be  repeated  by  him 
with  the  same  circumstances  and  the  same  turns  of  expression. 
Especially  would  no  one  vary  from  himself  in  reporting  the  words 
of  his  Master. 

We  have  next  to  consider,  that  the  apostles,  generally,  would 
adopt  a  uniform  mode  of  relating  the  same  events.     The  twelve 


CORRESPONDENCES  OF  THE  GOSPELS.      515 

apostles,  who  were  companions  of  our  Saviour,  resided  together  at 
Jerusalem,  we  know  not  for  how  long  a  period,  certainly  for 
several  years,  acting  and  preaching  in  concert.  This  being  tlie 
case,  tliey  would  confer  together  continually ;  they  would  be 
present  at  each  other's  discourses,  in  which  the  events  of  their 
Master's  life  were  related;  they  would,  in  connnon,  give  instruc- 
tion respecting  his  history  and  doctrine  to  new  converts,  especially 
to  those  who  were  to  go  forth  as  missionaries.  From  all  these 
circumstances,  their  modes  of  narrating  the  same  events  would 
become  assimilated  to  each  other.  Particularly  would  their  lan- 
guage be  the  same,  or  nearly  the  same,  in  quoting  and  applying 
passages  of  the  Old  Testament  as  prophetical,  and  in  reciting  the 
words  of  Jesus,  whose  very  expressions  they  must  have  been  de- 
sirous of  retaining.  But  the  verbal  agreement  among  the  first 
three  Gospels  is  found,  as  we  have  seen,  principally  where  the 
evangelists  record  Avords  spoken  by  Christ  or  by  others,  or  allege 
passages  from  the  Old  Testament.  Elsewhere  there  is  often  much 
resemblance  of  conception  and  expression,  but,  comparatively, 
much  less  verbal  coincidence. 

Previously,  then,  to  the  composition  of  the  first  three  Gospels, 
we  may  believe  that  the  narratives  which  they  contain  had  as- 
sumed, in  the  manner  explained,  a  form  more  or  less  definite. 
Matthew,  an  apostle,  would  commit  to  writing  those  narratives 
which  he  and  the  other  apostles  had  been  accustomed  to  connnuni- 
cate  orally.  Mark  and  Luke,  who  derived  their  knowledge  from 
the  apostles,  would  record  those  narratives  which  they  had  heard 
from  them.  But,  if  the  accounts  of  the  apostles  had  been  com- 
mitted to  writing  by  ever  so  many  different  historians,  still,  the 
written  agreeing  with  the  oral  accounts,  and  the  oral  accounts 
agreeing  with  each  other,  all  those  accounts  must  have  had  a 
striking  correspondence.  But,  however  definite  might  be  the 
form  which  any  oral  narrative  had  assumed,  still  there  would  be 
variations  of  language,  and  minor  circumstances  would  be  omitted 
or  hiserted,  as  it  was  orally  related  by  dlfTerent  individuals,  or  by 
the  same  individual  at  different  times,  or  recorded  by  different 
writers.  We  should  expect,  therefore,  to  find  in  histories  in 
which  these  narratives  were  collected,  such  intermingled  agree- 
ments and  variations  as  appear  in  the  first  three  Gospels.     Thus, 


616  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

then,  generally,  may  the  resemblance  between  the  first  three  Gos- 
pels be  explained.  In  the  oral  narratives  of  the  apostles,  we  find 
their  common  archetype,  —  an  archetype,  from  its  very  nature, 
partly  fixed  and  partly  fluctuating,  and  such,  therefore,  as  is 
required  to  account  at  once  for  their  coincidence  and  their  diver- 
sity.* 

*  There  are  several  remarks,  which,  to  avoid  breaking  the  connection  of 
the  text,  I  have  here  thrown  into  a  note. 

1.  It  deserves  observation,  that,  with  the  exception  of  the  history  of  the 
last  days  of  our  Saviour's  life,  the  accounts  of  his  ministry  in  the  first  three 
evangelists  relate  to  events  which  took  place  either  in  Galilee,  or  elsewhere, 
at  a  distance  from  Jerusalem.  With  this  part  of  his  ministry  the  inhabitants 
of  Jerusalem,  and  the  strangers  who  resorted  there,  being  least  acquainted, 
the  apostles  would  be  most  frequently  called  upon  to  give  information 
respecting  it.  How  little  was  correctly  known  among  the  great  body  of  tlie 
inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  concerning  the  ministry  of  Jesus,  appears  incident- 
ally from  two  passages  in  different  evangelists.  Upon  his  entry  into  that 
city,  "The  multitude  that  was  with  him,"  says  Jolm  (xii.  17,  IS),  "bore  tes- 
timony, that  he  had  called  Lazarus  from  the  tomb,  and  raised  him  from  the 
dead.  On  this  account,  also,  the  multitude  came  out  to  meet  him,  because 
they  heard  that  he  had  performed  this  miracle."  His  many  preceding  mira- 
cles, it  appears,  would  not  have  drawn  upon  him  such  attention.  Matthew 
says  (xxi.  10,  11):  "As  he  was  entering  Jerusalem,  the  whole  city  was  in 
commotion;  saying.  Who  is  he?  And  the  multitudes  "  (among  whom  there 
were  many,  without  doubt,  who  had  followed  him  from  Galilee)  "  said,  This 
is  Jesus  the  prophet,  from  Nazareth  of  Galilee."  Thus,  in  the  accounts  of 
Christ's  ministr}'  in  Galilee,  and  of  some  very  striking  discourses  which  he 
delivered  during  his  last  days  in  Jerusalem,  we  find  remarkable  correspond- 
ences among  the  first  three  evangelists,  because  these  accounts  were  of  a 
character  to  be  often  repeated  by  the  apostles ;  while,  in  the  relation  of  the 
minor  circumstances  attending  his  crucifixion  and  resurrection,  there  is  much 
diversity,  because,  however  important  were  the  main  events,  his  crucifixion 
was  universally  kno^vn,  and  it  was  imiversally  known  that  the  apostles 
affirmed  his  resurrection,  and  the  minor  circumstances  attending  those 
events  were  not  adapted  to  convey  any  general  instruction,  and  were  there- 
fore, as  we  may  suppose,  little  dwelt  upon  by  the  apostles.  In  general 
we  may  remark,  that  according  as  Avhat  is  related  was  adapted  to  take  a 
strong  hold  upon  the  mind,  and  was  likely  to  be  often  brought  forward  in 
the  oral  discourses  of  the  apostles,  the  greater  is  the  correspondence  among 
the  evangelists. 

2.  In  accounting  for  the  resemblance  among  the  first  three  Gospels,  we 
are  led  to  consider  the  difference  between  them  and  the  Gospel  of  John.  To 
explain  it,  we  may  observe,  that  this  Gospel  is  not  properly  a  history  of  the 


CORRESPONDENCES  OF  THE  GOSPELS.      517 

But,  in  order  fully  to  explain  the  verbal  coincidences  among 
the  three  Gospels,  we  must  take  into  view  some  other  considera- 
tions. How  is  it,  that  there  is  an  agreement  in  the  use  of  the  vciy 
same  Greek  words   throughout   many   passages?     We  will   first 

ministry  of  Jesus.  It  supposes  that  history,  as  recorded  in  the  first  three 
Gospels,  to  be  already  known:  it  is  founded  upon  it,  and  supplementary  to 
it.  It  relates  principally  to  what  took  place  at  Jerusalem,  where  our  Saviour 
spent  but  a  small  portion  of  his  ministry.  It  consists,  in  groat  part,  of  con- 
nected discourses  of  Jesus  with  the  unbelieving  Jews,  and  with  his  apostles, 
of  which  much  has  special  and  immediate  reference  only  to  the  character 
and  circumstances  of  those  immediately  addressed.  It  did  not,  like  the 
narrative  contained  in  the  first  three  Gospels,  constitute  that  elementary 
instruction  in  the  history  of  Jesus,  which  was  the  first  want  of  the  converts 
to  the  new  religion.  Like  the  Epistles  of  the  apostles,  it  implies  that  this 
had  been  already  received. 

3.  But,  it  may  be  asked,  if  it  was  a  principal  business  of  an  apostle  to 
give  information  concerning  the  public  life,  the  actions,  and  the  discourses 
of  Jesus,  how  was  St.  Paul  qualified  for  his  office  ?  I  answer,  that,  during 
the  first  part  of  his  ministry,  St.  Paul,  for  some  years,  had  Barnabas  for  a 
companion,  whom  we  find  very  early  associated  with  the  apostles,*  and 
a  very  earnest  preacher  of  Christ.  Three  years  after  his  conversion,  before 
he  had  properly  assumed  the  office  of  an  apostle,  he  was  with  Peter  fifteen 
days  at  Jerusalem.!  He  travelled  first  with  Mark,  and  afterwards  with 
Luke,  both  historians  of  Christ,  and  had  at  command  means  of  informa- 
tion similar  to  what  they  possessed.  Though,  before  his  conversion,  an 
eneni}'-  of  Christ,  yet,  being  an  enemy  full  of  intelligence  and  zeal,  it  is 
probable  that  he  was  then  as  well  acquainted  with  his  history  as  any  one 
not  an  immediate  disciple.  Jesus  was  watched,  during  his  ministry,  by 
Pharisees  and  teachers  of  the  Law,  some  of  whom  came  for  that  purpose 
from  Jerusalem  to  Galilee.  J  St.  Paul,  therefore,  was  not  likely  to  be  igno- 
rant concerning  his  deeds  and  sayings  at  the  time  of  his  own  conversion, 
though  the  whole  aspect  under  which  he  regarded  them  was  changed  by 
that  event.  Full  as  he  then  was  of  sorrow  and  veneration,  and  entire 
devotedness  to  the  cause  of  Christ,  and  surrounded  as  he  was  by  abundant 
means  of  informing  himself  concerning  his  character  and  history,  and  of 
correcting  all  his  former  misapprehensions  respecting  Avhat  he  had  said  and 
done,  there  is  nothing  strange  in  supposing  that  he  availed  himself  of  those 
means;  nay,  it  would  be  an  incredible  supposition,  that  he  did  not.  In  his 
Epistles,  we  find  repeated  references  to  the  history  of  Jesus  a<  it  is  related 
in  the  first  three  Gospels.  The  account  of  the  last  supper  of  our  Lord  is 
given  by  him  in  words,  the  greater  part  of  which  are  identical  with  those  of 
Luke. 

*  Acts  iv.  36  t  Gal.  i.  18.  J  Luke  v.  17. 


518  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

attend  to  this  agreement  between  Mark  and  Luke,  both  of  whom 
originally  wrote  in  the  Greek  language.  This  is  to  be  explained 
by  the  fact,  that,  though  the  native  language  of  the  apostles  was 
Hebrew,  yet  a  great  part  of  their  conversation  and  discourses 
must  have  been  in  Greek.  In  Greek  they  must  have  addressed 
all  who  were  not  Jews ;  and  to  a  large  proportion  even  of  Jews, 
the  Hellenists,  born  and  educated  in  foreign  countries,  the  Greek 
was  more  familiar  than  the  language  of  their  nation.  Many  for- 
eigners and  Hellenists  dwelt  in  Jerusalem,  or  resorted  thither 
occasionally.  The  great  national  feasts,  in  particular,  drew  to 
that  city  Jews  who  usually  resided  in  foreign  countries.  A  con- 
siderable portion  of  the  early  Christians  in  Jerusalem  was  com- 
posed of  Hellenists ;  *  and  with  Hellenists  St.  Paul  there  disputed 
after  his  conversion. f  We  find  mention  of  various  synagogues,  in 
that  city,  of  foreign  Jews,  who  associated  together  according  to 
the  countries  from  which  they  came ;  X  and  many  of  the  natives  of 
Palestine  were  sufficiently  acquainted  with  the  Greek  language  to 
use  it  for  the  purposes  of  communication.  With  the  exception  of 
St.  Luke  and  St.  Paul,  the  apostles  and  evangelists  were  unedu- 
cated men  ;  yet  all  the  writings  which  they  have  left  us,  except  the 
Gospel  of  Matthew,  were  composed  in  Greek.  There  would  even 
have  been  no  strangeness,  it  appears,  in  addressing  a  promiscuous 
multitude  at  Jerusalem  in  the  Greek  language ;  for,  upon  the 
occasion  of  the  tumult  at  the  apprehension  of  St.  Paul  in  that  city, 
we  are  told  only  that  he  was  heard  with  the  more  attention 
because  he  spoke  in  Hebrew.  §  As,  therefore,  the  apostles  wrote 
in  Greek,  so  we  may  reasonably  believe,  that,  while  residing 
together  in  Jerusalem,  they  often  taught  in  Greek,  in  the  presence 
of  each  other ;  and  that  thus  their  expressions  in  this  language,  as 
well  as  in  the  Hebrew,  became  assimilated.  We  may  in  this 
manner  explain  whatever  verbal  agreement  exists  between  St. 
Mark  and  St.  Luke ;  especially  as  it  is  principally  found  in  pas- 
sages in  Avhich  it  was  particularly  to  be  expected,  in  reports  of  the 
words  of  our  Saviour  and  others,  and  in  quotations  from  the  Old 
Testament.  Their  whole  verbal  coincidence  in  narrative  does 
not,  I  believe,  exceed  the  amount  of  more  than  six  or  eight  verses 
of  average  length. 

•  Acts  vi.  1,  seqq.      f  Acts  ix.  29.      J  Acts  vi.  9.      §  Acts  xxii.  2. 


CORRESPONDENCES  OF  THE  GOSPELS.      519 

The  Gospel  of  Matthew,  having  been  originally  written  in 
Hebrew,  was  probably  translated  into  Greek  some  time  al)Out  the 
close  of  the  first  century.  The  verbal  coincidences  of  its  transla- 
tion with  the  Gospels  of  Mark  and  Luke  admit  of  ont;,  and  I 
think  only  one,  satisfactory  solution.  The  original  of  Matthew 
agreed  with  them  essentially  in  many  narratives  and  many  sayings 
and  discourses  of  Christ.  These,  or  portions  of  these,  were  the 
same,  except  their  expression  in  different  languages ;  and  the 
manner  of  their  expression  in  the  Greek  language  had  been  fixed 
by  the  Greek  Gospels  of  Mark  and  Luke.  But  these  Gospels 
being  known  to  the  translator  of  Matthew,  when  his  original 
corresponded  with  them  sufiiciently,   he  was  led  to  adopt  their 


One  phenomenon  in  the  Gospels  still  remains  to  be  noticed.  It 
is  the  agreement  of  Mark  and  Luke  in  their  chronological  misar- 
rangement  of  some  of  the  events  which  the  first  three  evangelists 
relate  in  common.  On  the  hypothesis  of  an  Original  Gospel,  it  is 
supposed  that  this  misarrangement  existed  in  that  Gospel,  and 
was  copied  from  it  by  Mark  and  Luke,  who  were  themselves  igno- 
rant of  the  true  order  of  events,  but  was  corrected  by  Matthew, 
who,  as  an  apostle,  was  better  informed.  This,  however,  is  only 
removing  one  difficulty  by  creating  another;  for  it  would  be 
strange,  that  a  misarrangement,  which  any  apostle  might  have 
corrected,  should  exist  in  a  work  prepared  under  the  direction  of 
the  apostles,  and  sanctioned  by  them,  especially  in  a  work  so  brief 
as  to  seem  intended  rather  for  a  memorandum  of  the  chronological 
series  of  events  in  Christ's  ministry  than  for  any  other  purpose. 
The  explanation  that  has  been  proposed  of  the  agreement  among 
the  Gospels,  in  the  character  of  their  narratives  and  their  use  of 
language,  involves  no  solution  of  this  difficulty.  Admitting  the 
truth  of  that  explanation,  the  misarrangement  in  question  becomes 
a  separate  and  independent,  though  not  very  important,  problem, 
requiring  a  solution  of  its  own.     But,  in  our  ignorance  respecting 


*  I  remarked  in  the  first  edition,  that  "the  credit  of  this  explanation 
belongs  to  Bishop  Marsh."  I  have  since  observed  that  Grotius  (Introduc. 
ad  Comment,  in  Mattha^um)  says:  "Marci  libro  Gra^co  usus  mihi  videtuf 
quisquis  is  fuit  Matthaei  Grajcus  iuterpres."  —  Note  to  Second  Edition. 


520  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

all  but  the  leading  events  of  the  apostolic  age,  whatever  cause  for 
it  we  may  assign  must  be  only  conjectural. 

One  solution  that  has  occurred  to  me  is  immediately  connected 
with  the  account  which  has  been  given  of  the  origin  of  the  agree- 
ment among  the  Gospels :  it  is.  that  the  correspondence  in  the 
arrangement  of  Mark  and  Luke  had  its  source  in  the  oral  preach- 
ing and  discourses  of  the  apostles.  It  is  not  probable,  that  the 
apostles  often,  if  ever,  undertook  to  recite  in  one  discourse,  or 
in  a  connected  series  of  discourses,  all  the  transactions  of  the 
ministry  of  Jesus  related  by  any  one  of  the  first  three  evangelists. 
According  to  the  particular  occasion  presented,  or  the  special 
object  which  they  had  in  view,  they  would  group  together  events, 
sayings,  and  discourses  particularly  adapted  to  their  purpose. 
They  would  class  their  accounts  of  their  Master,  not  narrate  them 
chronologically.  To  this  mode  of  teaching  we  may  perhaps 
look  as  the  occasion  of  the  agreement  between  Mark  and  Luke 
in  the  displacing  of  some  events,  and  as  the  occasion,  likewise,  of 
the  general  want  of  chronological  arrangement  in  Luke,  and  of  the 
existence  of  something  of  a  systematical,  founded  upon  a  chrono- 
logical, arrangement  in  Matthew. 

This  general  solution  may  be  accepted  as  probable,  whether  we 
can  or  cannot  discover  any  special  cause  which  might  have  affected 
the  arrangement  of  those  particular  events  to  which  Mark  and 
Luke  agree  in  giving  a  place  different  from  that  assigned  to  them 
by  Matthew.  It  may  therefore  be  scarcely  worth  while  to  enter 
into  the  inquiry,  whether  such  causes  can  be  conjectured.  Yet  it 
seems  to  me  that  tliey  may  be ;  and,  as  the  subject  will  occupy  but 
little  space,  I  will  venture  to  suggest  them. 

The  most  important  instance  of  misarrangement,  in  which 
Mark  and  Luke  both  differ  Irom  Matthew,  is  in  the  place  which 
they  assign  to  the  voyage  to  Gennesaret,  with  the  miracles  ac- 
companying and  following  it.*  According  to  them,  these  events 
took  place  immediately  after  the  delivery  of  the  parable  of  the 
sower,  and  some  othej  striking  parables  and  sayings  of  Jesus. 
These  parables  and  sayings  are  of  a  general  character,  relating  to 

*  See  before,  p.  470,  seqq. 


CORRESPONDENCES  OF  THE  GOSPELS.      521 

the  reception  of  the  new  religion,  to  the  importance  of  h'stening 
to  its  truths,  to  its  future  rapid  growth,  and  to  the  blessedness  of 
its  disciples.  They  are  of  the  kind  that  might  be  repeated,  by 
the  apostles  and  first  preachers  of  Christianity,  to  an  audience 
who  had  collected  to  listen  and  to  inquire,  but  many  of  whom  had 
not  yet  professed  themselves  Christians.  After  having,  in  the 
words  of  their  Master,  warned  such  an  audience,  that  the  seed 
might  flill  on  good  ground  or  on  bad ;  that  they  should  give  heed 
to  what  they  heard ;  that  the  religion,  which  was  but  in  its  begin- 
ning, was,  through  the  power  of  God,  to  extend  itself  widely ; 
that  to  every  one  who  had,  more  should  be  given ;  and  that  the 
disciples  of  Jesus  were  to  him  as  his  dearest  relatives,* — it  would 
be  natural  to  mention  some  of  those  displays  of  divine  power  upon 
which  this  new  teacher  founded  his  claims  to  divine  authority : 
and  perhaps  no  more  striking  series  of  miracles  could  have  been 
selected,  than  his  commanding  the  winds  and  waves  to  be  still; 
his  giving  sanity  to  a  raging  demoniac,  under  circumstances  so 
extraordinary;  the  cure  of  a  woman,  long  diseased,  by  her  merely 
touching  his  garment ;  and  his  restoring  life  to  the  daughter  of 
Jairus.  It  is  thus,  perhaps,  that  we  may  explain  how  the  relation 
of  some  of  the  most  remarkable  miracles  of  Jesus  came  to  be 
connected  with  the  recital  of  some  of  his  parables  and  sayings, 
in  which  he  set  before  men  the  importance  of  listening  to  the  truths 
which  he  taught.  They  were,  in  consequence,  thus  connected  by 
Mark  and  Luke ;  and  the  mistake  into  which  Mark  has  particu- 
larly fallen,  of  supposing  that  the  voyage  to  Gennesaret  imme- 
diately followed  the  delivery  of  those  parables, f  was  facilitated  by 
the  circumstance,  that  they  were  actually  delivered  from  a  vessel 
on  the  lake  near  the  shore  at  Capernaum,  and  that  Jesus  imme- 
diately after  left  that  city. J 

We  pass  to  another  of  the  chronological  discrepances  among  the 
evangelists.  Matthew  relates,  that  Jesus,  previously  to  his  entering 
Capernaum  on  a  certain  sabbath,  cured  a  leper ;  while  INIark  and 
Luke  relate  this  cure  as  having  been  performed  when  Jesus  had  left 
Capernaum,  §  after  the  sabbath  just  mentioned,  upon  which  day 


*  Mark  iv.  1-32.    Luke  viii.  4-21.  t  See  before,  p.  477. 

t  Matt.  xiii.  1,  53  §  See  before,  p.  470. 


522  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

he  appears,  from  all  the  evangelists,  first  to  have  publicly  preached 
in  that  city.  Perhaps  this  disagreement  may  be  thus  explained. 
As  Jesus,  during  his  ministry  in  Galilee,  fixed  on  Capernaum  as 
his  chief  place  of  residence,  setting  out  on  his  journeys  from  it 
and  returning  to  it,  we  may  suppose  the  apostles  to  have  been 
accustomed  to  begin  some  short  narrative  of  his  ministry  with  the 
mention  of  this  fact,  and  an  account  of  his  first  appearance  in 
Capernaum  as  a  public  teacher.  No  particular  miracle,  except 
this  cure  of  a  leper,  is  related  by  either  of  the  first  three  evange- 
lists as  having  been  performed  by  Jesus  before  that  event ;  and 
this  miracle  is  related  by  INIatthew  as  taking  place  on  the  morning 
of  the  same  day.  As,  then,  a  brief  oral  account  of  Christ's 
preaching  in  Galilee  would  naturally  commence  with  the  mention 
of  Capernaum  as  his  chief  place  of  residence,  and.  as  this  would 
lead  to  an  account  of  the  first  day  of  his  public  ministry  spent  in 
that  city,  the  miracle  of  the  cure  of  the  leper,  which  preceded  his 
entrance  into  it,  must  either  have  been  passed  over  in  silence,  or 
introduced  subsequently  into  the  narrative.  I  suppose  the  latter 
course  to  have  been  adopted,  on  account  of  its  being  a  miracle 
which  excited  particular  attention,  and  to  which  particular  impor- 
tance had  been  attached  ;  as  appears  from  its  being  related  circum- 
stantially by  all  three  of  the  evangelists,  and  from  the  fact  that 
Mark  and  Luke  represent  it  as  a  special  cause  why  great  multi 
tudes  flocked  to  Jesus.  The  particular  impression  which  this 
miracle  produced  may  be  ascribed  to  its  probably  being  the  first, 
or  one  of  the  first,  that  Jesus  performed  in  Capernaum  or  its  im- 
mediate neighborhood,  and  therefore  the  first  that  most  of  the 
spectators  of  it  had  witnessed ;  to  the  horror  with  which  leprosy 
was  regarded  among  the  Jews ;  to  the  confidence  manifested  by 
Jesus  in  putting  his  hand  upon  the  infectious  suiferer;  to  the 
incurable  state  of  the  disease  by  natural  means,  — for  he  "  was  full 
of  leprosy;"*  and  to  the  circumstance  of  our  Saviour's  sending 
the  man  to  the  priests,  who  were  already  his  enemies,  that  they 
might  certify,  in  effect,  that  a  miracle  had  been  performed. 

In  the  only  remaining  case  of  any  importance,  in  which  Mark 
and  Luke  agree  together  in   differing  from  the  arrangement  of 

*  Luke  v.  12. 


CORRESPONDENCES  OF  THE  GOSPELS.      523 

Matthew,  the  application  of  the  general  solution  that  has  been 
proposed  is  obvious.  According  to  this,  narratives  bearing  upon 
the  same  point  would  be  brought  together  in  the  oral  discourses 
of  the  apostles.  Now,  there  are  two  narratives,  one  relating  to 
the  disciples  of  Jesus  plucking  ears  of  grain  on  the  sabbatli,  and 
the  other  to  the  miraculous  cure  of  a  man  with  a  withered  hand, 
likewise  on  the  sabbath,  which  stand  in  immediate  connection  in 
all  three  evangelists.  But,  by  Mark  and  Luke,  an  earlier  period 
is  assigned  to  these  events  than  by  Matthew.*  They  record 
them  immediately  after  their  account  of  the  conversation  with  the 
disciples  of  John  and  the  Pharisees  concerning  fasting,  which 
occurred  at  Capernaum.  The  two  narratives  were,  I  believe, 
brought  into  connection  with  this  account  of  our  Saviour^s  dis- 
course concerning  fasting,  from  the  circumstance,  that  all  three 
relations  bear  directly  on  the  same  subject,  the  worthless  charac- 
ter of  the  ceremonial  and  superstitious  observances  of  the  Jews. 
In  the  one  case,  Jesus  gave  them  to  understand  his  estimate  of 
their  stated  weekly  fasts  ;  and,  in  the  other,  of  their  bigotry  about 
the  keeping  of  the  sabbath. 

Thus  the  phenomenon  of  the  misarrangement  of  events  by  Mark 
and  Luke,  in  opposition  to  Matthew,  may  be  accounted  for.  But 
another  solution  of  it  may  likewise  be  given.  Among  the  narra- 
tives relating  to  Jesus,  mentioned  by  Luke  in  the  beginning  of  his 
Gospel,  there  may  have  been  one  which  had  obtained  more  credit 
and  a  wider  circulation  than  any  other.  Now,  without  supposing 
Mark  or  Luke  to  have  drawn  their  narratives  from  it,  or  to  have 
relied  upon  it  as  an  authority  for  individual  facts,  or  to  have  used 
its  language,  except  so  far  as  it  coincided  with  forms  of  expres- 
sion already  familiar  to  them,  they  still  may  both  have  used  it  as 
a  guide  in  respect  to  the  succession  of  those  events,  with  the  true 
order  of  which  it  appears  that  they  both  were  acquainted.  It 
is  to  be  observed,  that  it  is  only  their  coincidence  with  each  other 
that  presents  any  difficulty.  The  misarrangement  in  any  one 
narrative  which  they  may  be  supposed  to  have  used  in  common 
requires  no  particular  explanation. 

*  See  before,  p.  473. 


524  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

To  return,  then,  to  our  general  position,  we  suppose  that  the 
Correspondences  among  the  first  three  Gospels  are  to  be  explained 
by  the  fact,  that  the  oral  narratives  of  the  apostles  were  their 
common  archetype.  Upon  the  supposition  that  those  Gospels  are 
genuine,  it  may  be  worth  while  to  observe  how  little  is  assumed  in 
coming  to  this  conclusion,  of  which  there  can  be  any  reasonable 
doubt.  A  great  part  of  the  oral  discourses  of  the  apostles  must 
have  been  historical ;  for  the  acts  and  words  of  Jesus  were  the 
foundation  of  all  that  they  taught,  and  the  first  object  of  the 
faith  of  their  converts.  And,  when  one  of  their  number  and  two 
of  their  constant  companions  committed  to  writing  accounts  of 
their  common  Master,  it  could  not  be  otherwise  than  that  these 
written  accounts  should  strikingly  correspond  with  those  which 
had  been  orally  delivered,  and  consequently  with  e9,ch  other. 


Section  V. 

Inferences  from  tlie  Explanation  loJiich  has  been  given  of  the  Cor- 
respondences  among  the  First  Three  Gospels. 

The  appearances  which  the  first  three  Gospels  present,  when 
compared  together,  are  adapted  to  excite  our  curiosity  and  inter- 
est, because  they  are  of  so  remarkable  a  chai'acter  as  to  imply,  that 
some  extraordinary  cause  must  have  operated  to  produce  them, 
and  that  the  discovery  of  this  cause  will  throw  light  on  the  early 
history  of  Christianity.  Let  us  see,  then,  what,  if  we  have  rea- 
soned correctly,  may  be  inferred  from  the  preceding  investigation. 

The  conclusion,  that  no  one  of  the  first  three  evangelists  copied 
from  either  of  the  other  two,  is  important,  as  showing  that  their 
Gospels  afford  three  distinct  sources  of  information  concerning  the 
life  of  Jesus.  The  evangelists,  therefore,  in  their  striking  corre- 
spondence in  the  representations  of  his  character,  miracles,  and 
doctrines,  must  be  considered  as  strongly  confirming  each  other's 
testimony.  Nothing  but  reality,  nothing  but  the  fact  that  Jesus 
had  acted  and  taught  as  they  represent,  would  have  stamped  his 
character  and  story  so  definitely  and  vividly  on  the  minds  of  indi- 
viduals ignorant  of  each  other's  writings,  and  enabled  them  to 
give  narratives,  each  so  consistent  with  itself,  and  all  so  ace:)rdant 


CORRESPONDENCES  OF  THE  GOSPELS.      525 

with  one  another.  A  false  story  concerning  an  imaginary  charac- 
ter would  have  preserved  no  uniform  type.  It  would  have  varied 
in  its  aspect  according  to  the  different  temperament  and  talents, 
the  conceptions  and  purposes,  of  its  various  narrators. 

We  may  next  observe,  that,  if  the  notion  that  one  evangelist 
copied  from  another  be  given  up,  then  the  accordance  among  the 
first  three  Gospels  proves  them  all  to  have  been  written  at  an 
early  period,  when  the  sources  of  authentic  information  were  yet 
fully  accessible,  and  before  any  interval  had  elapsed,  during  which 
the  thousand  exaggerations,  perversions,  and  fables,  to  which  the 
wonderful  history  of  Jesus  was  particularly  exposed,  had  had  time 
to  flow  in,  and  to  change  its  character  as  it  might  appear  in  differ- 
ent narratives. 

If  the  evangelists  did  not  copy  one  from  another,  it  follows 
that  the  first  three  Gospels  must  all  have  been  written  about  the 
same  period ;  since,  if  one  had  preceded  another  by  any  consider- 
able length  of  time,  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  the  author  of  the 
later  Gospel  would  have  been  unacquainted  with  the  works  of  his 
predecessor,  or  would  have  neglected  to  make  use  of  it ;  especially 
when  we  take  into  view,  that  its  reputation  must  have  been  well 
established  among  Christians.  Whatever  antiquity,  therefore,  we 
can  show  to  belong  to  any  one  of  the  first  three  Gospels,  the  same, 
or  nearly  the  same,  we  may  ascribe  to  the  other  two.  Now,  Luke, 
in  the  beginning  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  speaks  of  his  Gospel 
in  terms  which  imply  that  this  work  had  been  completed  but  a 
little  while  before ;  and,  in  the  Acts,  he  brings  down  the  history 
to  the  end  of  the  second  year  of  Paul's  residence  at  Rome,  which 
was  some  time  after  the  sixtieth  year  of  t)ur  era.  According,  like- 
wise, to  the  remarks  formerly  made  respecting  the  Gospel  of 
Mark,*  it  must  have  been  written  about  the  year  Qo,  Avlien  St. 
Peter  is  supposed  to  have  suffered  martyrdom  at  Rome.  We  may 
conclude,  therefore,  that  no  one  of  the  first  three  Gospels  was 
written  long  before  or  long  after  the  year  60. 

Again,  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  was  written  in  Hebrew ;  and  the 

*  See  p.  449. 


526  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

present  Greek  translation  of  it  was  extant  very  early  in  the  second 
century.  But,  before  this  time,  the  Gospels  of  Mark  and  Luke 
■were  in  existence,  and  probably  in  extensive  circulation ;  for  we 
cannot  account  for  the  remarkable  coincidence  of  language  be- 
tween our  Greek  translation  of  Matthew  and  those  Gospels,  ex- 
cept by  the  supposition,  that  the  translator,  through  his  familiarity 
with  them,  was  led  to  adopt  their  expressions  when  suitable  to  his 
purpose. 

We  have  seen,  that  the  evangelists  copied  neither  one  from 
another,  nor  from  common  written  documents,  such  as  have  been 
imagined.  But  if  the  supposition  of  an  Original  Gospel,  receiving 
constant  additions  and  alterations  from  successive  transcribers,  be 
unfounded,  the  notion  connected  with  it,  of  the  corruption  of  our 
present  Gospels  by  similar  additions  and  alterations,  loses  all 
appearance  of  probability.  The  former  supposition  has  served  to 
introduce  the  latter,  has  been  blended  with  it,  and  has  been  re- 
garded as  affording  the  chief  evidence  of  its  truth.  But,  the  whole 
theory  concerning  an  Original  Gospel  falling  to  the  ground,  the 
notion  of  any  such  corruption  of  our  present  Gospels  as  has  been 
supposed  is  left,  unsupported  by  a  plausible  argument,  to  its  in- 
trinsic incredibility. 

With  that  theory  is  likewise  connected  the  supposition,  that 
other  more  ancient  gospels  were  in  common  use  among  Christians 
after  the  apostolic  age,  and  before  the  late  period,  when,  as  it  has 
been  pretended,  our  present  Gospels  first  came  into  general  use. 
These  more  ancient  gospels,  it  may  be  recollected,  are  imagined 
to  have  been,  in  common  with  our  first  three  Gospels,  derived  from 
the  Original  Gospel ;  and  •all  the  books  of  this  class  are  supposed 
to  have  agreed  with,  and  differed  from,  one  another  in  much  the 
same  manner  as  do  now  the  three  Gospels  which  alone  remain. 
As  there  was  nothing,  according  to  the  theory,  to  stop  this  process 
of  refashioning  the  Original  Gospel,  and  the  consequent  multipli- 
cation of  new  gospels  more  or  less  varying  from  one  another,  till 
about  the  close  of  the  second  century,  when  it  is  admitted  that  our 
present  Gospels  had  assumed  nearly  the  form  they  now  possess, 
and  had  obtained  general  reception,  it  follows  that  many  different 
compilations  must  have  been  in  common  use  before.      The  infer- 


CORRESPONDENCES  OF  THE  GOSPELS.      527 

ence,  considered  m  its  various  other  bearings,  is  incredible ;  but, 
if  the  theory  of  an  Original  Gospel  be  false,  no  compilations  of  the 
sort  described  could  have  existed. 

A  different  ground,  it  is  true,  may  be  taken :  the  notion,  that 
those  earliir  gospels  descended,  in  counnon  with  our  own,  from  an 
Original  Goj^pel,  may  be  abandoned  ;  and  it  may  still  be  maintained, 
that  there  were  histories  of  Christ,  — such,  for  instance,  as  those 
mentioned  in  the  introduction  to  Luke's  Gospel,  — not  only  prior  to 
our  present  Gospels,  but  in  common  use  among  Christians  after  the 
apostolic  age,  and  during  a  great  part  of  the  second  century.  The 
supposition  of  gospels  in  counnon  use  before  those  which  Ave  now 
possess  is  thus  presented  in  its  simplest  form,  unembarrassed  with 
any  hypothesis  respecting  the  mode  of  their  formation.  I  shall 
here  view  it  in  reference  only  to  the  investigation  in  which  we 
have  been  engaged. 

The  proposition,  that  our  present  Gospels,  about  the  end  of 
the  second  century,  took  the  place  of  other  gospels,  which  had 
before  been  regarded  as  of  authority,  cannot  be  inade  plausible, 
except  on  the  theory  of  an  Original  Gospel,  from  which  our  pres- 
ent Gospels  and  those  other  gospels  were  equally  derived.  It  is 
only  by  representing  the  supposed  earlier  gospels  as  Avorks  of  the 
same  character  Avith  those  now  extant,  derived  in  a  similar  manner 
from  the  same  source,  so  that  all  Avere  but  refashionings  of  the 
same  original  document  or  documents,  that  any  plausibility  can 
be  given  to  the  supposition,  that  our  present  Gospels,  on  tlie 
ground  of  their  being  more  complete  Avorks  of  the  same  class, 
superseded  those  earlier  narratives,  which  are  imagined  to  have 
been  comparatively  imperfect.  But  when  it  is  agreed,  that  those 
more  ancient  gospels,  upon  the  supposition  that  any  such  Avere  in 
common  use  during  the  second  century,  Avere  not  branches,  groAv- 
ing  Avith  our  present  Gospels  from  a  common  stock,  an  Original 
Gospel,  but  Avere  distinct  Avorks,  permanent  in  their  form,  having 
each  a  proper  individuality,  then  Ave  perceive  at  once,  that  books 
Avhich,  since  the  apostolic  age,  had  been  in  common  use  among 
Christians  as  authentic  histories  of  their  Master,  could  not  have 
been  displaced  and  annihilated  by  a  ncAv  set  of  books,  introduced 
about  the  end  of  the  second  century.  It  Avould  be  as  easy  to  be- 
lieve, that  a  neAv  growth  might  spring  up  under  a  forest  in  full 


628  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

vigor,  and  overshade  and  choke  the  trees  which,  for  more  than  a 
century,  had  been  taking  root  in  the  soil. 

Section  VI. 

lUustraiion  of  the  First  Three  Gospels  to  he  derived  from  the  Cir- 
cumstances connected  with  their  Composition. 

The  view  we  have  taken  of  the  origin  of  the  correspondences 
among  the  first  three  Gospels  is  important  as  regards  the  explana- 
tion of  those  Gospels,  particularly  that  of  Luke.  It  opens  a  new 
source  of  illustration. 

The  apostles,  familiar  as  they  were  with  the  words  of  their 
Master,  and  continually  using  them  in  their  discourses,  would 
often  quote  them  disjoined  from  their  original  connection.  They 
would  blend  together  those  uttered  at  different  times  in  relation 
to  the  same  subject ;  and  they  would  likewise  naturally  apply  to 
new  occasions  his  striking  expressions  and  figurative  language,  so 
as  sometimes  to  divert  his  words,  more  or  less,  from  their  primi- 
tive meaning,  or  at  least  from  their  primary  reference.  But 
these  characteristics  of  their  preaching  would  be  likely  to  produce 
an  effect  on  works  bearing  such  a  relation  to  it  as  we  suppose  the 
three  Gospels  to  have  done. 

This  effect  is  less  obvious  in  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  than  in 
that  of  Luke.  But  in  Matthew's  Gospel  we  find,  I  believe,  what 
may  be  called  a  systematic,  though  quite  natural  arrangement, 
connected  with  his  general  regard  to  chronological  order.  When 
some  striking  occasion  presented  itself,  he  seems,  in  a  few 
instances,  to  have  brought  together  sayings  of  our  Lord  which 
he  viewed  as  related  to  each  other,  but  which  were  uttered  at  dif- 
ferent times. 

Thus,  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  Matthew  appears  to  have 
intended  to  give  a  general  view  of  our  Lord's  teaching,  and,  taking 
for  his  basis  what  was  spoken  on  that  occasion,  to  have  connected 
with  it  other  precepts  and  declarations,  which,  if  I  may  so  speak, 
had  been  attracted  to  and  associated  with  that  discourse,  through 
their  bearing  on  its  main  purpose  or  on  particular  subjects  intro- 


CORRESPONDENCES  OF  THE  GOSPELS.      629 

duced  into  it.  In  consequence,  some  of  our  Lord's  words,  as  there 
given,  belong,  as  may  seem,  to  a  later  period  of  his  ministry  ;  some 
appear  to  have  been  called  forth  by  particular  occasions  which 
aftierwards  occurred ;  and  precepts  which  were  accommodated  to, 
and  limited  by,  the  peculiar  and  temporary  circumstances  of  those 
ivho  had  devoted  themselves  to  him  as  his  disciples,  and  which 
perhaps  were  not  addressed  to  them  till  their  number  was  in- 
creased, and  their  conceptions  of  their  new  duties  were  more 
enlarged,  are  blended  with  precepts  of  universal  obligation. 

But  perhaps  the  most  important  example  of  this  characteristic 
of  his  Gospel  is  to  be  found  in  the  prophecy,  as  given  by  him,  of 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  of  the  coming  of  the  Son  of 
man.  This  appears,  from  a  comparison  with  Luke,  to  be  a 
compilation  of  several  discourses,*  the  bearing  and  purport  of 
all  of  which  are  not  to  be  correctly  comprehended  without  re- 
garding them  in  connection  with  the  occasions  on  which  Luke 
reports  them  to  have  been  delivered.  It  is  to  be  recollected,  that, 
according  to  the  Gospel  of  Mark,f  Matthew  was  not  present  at 
this  discourse. 

The  effect  resulting  from  the  manner  in  which  the  apostles, 
in  their  teaching,  may  be  supposed  to  have  used  the  words  of 
their  Master,  is  little,  if  at  all,  to  be  discerned  in  the  Gospel 
of  Mark.  His  account  of  the  sayings  of  our  Lord  is  much 
more  limited  than  that  of  either  Matthew  or  Luke ;  and  gen- 
erally, of  those  which  he  reports,  the  relation  to  the  circum- 
stances which  called  them  forth,  and  the  relation  to  each  other, 
appear  to  have  been  well  settled.  The  influence  of  the  oral 
teaching  of  the  apostles  on  the  construction  of  his  Gospel  seems  to 
have  extended  little  further,  than  to  affect  directly  or  mediately  its 
chronological  arrangement,  as  formerly  suggested.  J 

But  the  operation  of  those  characteristics,  which  have  been  ex- 
plained, of  the  oral  teaching  of  the  apostles  on  the  Gospel  of  Luke, 


*  Compare  Luke  xvii.  22-37  and  xxi.  5-36  with  Matt.  xxiv.  1-42; 
Luke  xii.  35-48  with  Matt.  xxiv.  42-51 ;  and  Luke  xix.  11-27  with  Matt. 
XXV.  14-30. 

t  Chap.  xiii.  3.  J  See  before,  p.  520,  seqq. 

84 


630  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

was,  I  conceive,  so  great,  that  this  Gospel,  in  consequence,  pre- 
sents throughout  remarkable  appearances,  to  which  we  will  now 
attend.  The  proof  of  the  correctness  of  the  views  of  it  which  we 
are  about  to  take  must  be  drawn  principally  from  a  comparison  of 
it  with  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  though  Mark  may  afford  occa- 
sional assistance. 

I.  In  the  first  place,  Luke  has  sometimes,  I  think,  given  the 
words  of  Jesus  in  such  a  connection,  that  they  have  a  meaning 
which  he  did  not  express,  though  it  be  one  which  he  might  havft 
expressed.     The  following  is  an  example  :  — 

According  to  Matthew,  Jesus,  in  forewarning  his  apostles  of 
the  persecution  which  they  would  endure  from  the  enemies  of  his 
religion,  tells  them  that  in  this  they  would  be  like  him,  that  their 
treatment  would  be  similar  to  his  own,  and  charges  them  not  to  be 
deterred  by  it  from  proclaiming  the  truths  which  he  had  taught 
them.     He  says  (x.  26-28)  :  — 

"Fear  them  not,  then.  For  there  is  nothing  covered  which  is 
not  to  be  unveiled,  nor  any  thing  seci-et  which  is  not  to  be  made 
known.  What  I  tell  you  in  darkness,  speak  in  the  light;  and 
what  is  whispered  in  your  ear,  proclaim  on  tlie  house-tops.  And 
fear  not  those  who  may  kill  the  body,  but  cannot  kill  the  soul : 
rather  fear  him  who  can  destroy  both  soul  and  body  in  hell." 

The  passage  goes  on  with  the  words,  "  Are  not  two  sparrows 
sold  for  a  penny  ?  "  and  those  which  follow. 

Here,  when  it  is  said,  *'For  there  is  nothing  covered  which 
is  not  to  be  unveiled,"  the  meaning  is,  that  there  were  no  secrets 
in  his  religion.  It  was  to  be  fully  proclaimed.  Nothing  was 
to  be  kept  concealed  through  fear  of  men.  Thus,  Mark,  after 
relating  the  parable  of  the  sower,  and  its  explanation  to  the  dis- 
ciples, represents  our  Lord  as  saying,*  *'  Is  the  lamp  brought 
to  be  put  under  the  measure  or  the  bench,  and  not  to  be  set  on 
its  stand?  Nothing  is  hidden  but  that  it  may  be  made  known, 
nor  was  any  thing  concealed  but  that  it  might  be  brought  to 
light;"  which  words  are,  I  think,  to  be  understood  thus:  —  I 
have  not  come  to  keep  back  the  truths  of  religion,  but  to  reveal 

*  Mark  iv.  21,  22. 


CORRESPONDENCES  OF  THE  GOSPELS.      531 

them.  There  is  nothing  in  my  discourses  intended  to  hide  them ; 
there  was  nothing  intended  to  conceal  them  in  the  parable  you 
have  just  heard :  on  the  contrary,  my  modes  of  speaking  are 
adopted,  because  they  are  most  likely  effectually  to  impress  these 
truths  upon  the  minds  of  such  hearers  as  I  address. 

Luke  has  one  passage  *  similar  to  the  last.  But,  in  another 
place,  he  ascribes  these  words  to  Jesus  (xii.  1-5)  :  — 

"He  said  to  his  disciples.  Above  all  things,  beware  of  the 
leaven  of  the  Pharisees,  which  is  hypocrisy.  For  every  thing 
covered  shall  be  laid  open,  and  every  thing  concealed  made 
known.  What  ye  have  spoken  in  darkness  will  be  heard  in  light, 
and  what  ye  have  whispered  in  closets  proclaimed  upon  house-tops. 

*'  But  I  say  to  you,  my  friends,  be  not  afraid  of  those  who  kill 
the  body,  and  after  this  can  do  nothing  more ;  but  I  will  instruct 
you  whom  to  fear :  fear  Him  who,  after  having  killed,  hath  power 
to  cast  into  hell." 

This  passage  continues,  like  that  in  Matthew,  "Are  not  five 
sparrows  sold  for  two  pennies  ?  "  &c. 

The  first  part  of  this  passage,  it  is  evident  from  the  turns 
of  expression  and  from  its  connection  with  what  follows,  was 
intended  to  be  a  report  of  the  same  words  of  Jesus  which  are 
given  by  Matthew.  There  seems  no  ground  for  doubt,  that 
their  true  sense  and  proper  bearing  appear  in  Matthew ;  but,  if 
this  be  so,  their  meaning  was  misapprehended  by  Luke.  This 
may  have  arisen  from  the  circumstance,  that  these  striking  words 
had,  previously  to  the  composition  of  his  Gospel,  been  sometimes 
separated  from  their  original  connection,  and  applied  to  the 
subject  of  hypocrisy,  to  which  they  so  well  admit  of  being  accom- 
modated. 

The  following  is  another  example  of  the  same  kind :  — 
In   Matthew,   we   find   these  words   in    the    Sermon    on   the 
Mount :  f  — 

"Therefore,  if  thou  bring  thy  gift  to  the  altar,  and  there  re- 
member that  thy  brother  has  a  charge  against  thee,  leave  tliere 
thy  gift  before  the  altar,  and  go  away ;  first  reconcile  thy  brother 
to  thee,  and  then  come  and  offer  thy  gift.     Show  thy  good-will 

•  Luke  viii.  16-18.  t  Matt.  v.  23-26. 


632  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

towards  him  who  has  this  charge  against  thee,*  quickly,  whilst 
thou  art  in  the  way  with  him ;  f  lest  he  bring  thee  before  the 
judge,  and  the  judge  deliver  thee  to  the  officer,  and  thou  be 
cast  into  prison.  Truly,  I  say  to  thee,  thou  wilt  not  come  out 
thence  till  thou  hast  paid  the  uttermost  farthing." 

This  is  the  conclusion  of  a  passage  in  which  our  Saviour  warns 
his  followers,  in  the  most  solemn  manner,  against  being  angry 
without  cause,  and  expressing  ill-will  to  others  even  by  injurious 
language.  The  words  which  immediately  precede  are  these : 
"  Whoever  shall  call  his  brother  a  reprobate  shall  be  punishable 
by  the  fire  of  hell."  It  was  common  among  the  Jews  to  repre- 
sent a  sin  or  an  injury  under  the  figure  of  a  debt;  and  the 
whole  passage,  therefore,  is  closely  connected.  He  who  has  in- 
jured his  brother  is  directed  not  even  to  worship  God  till  he 
has  effected  a  reconciliation.  He  is  to  show  his  good-will  toward 
him  quickly,  lest  he  should  be  called  to  suflfer  the  full  punish- 
ment of  his  offence. 

In  Luke,  the  last  part  of  the  passage  under  consideration  ap- 
pears in  quite  another  connection,  and  with  a  different  meaning,:): 

"Hypocrites!  Ye  can  judge  correctly  of  the  appearances  of 
the  earth  and  sky :  how  is  it  that  ye  do  not  judge  correctly  of  the 
present  time?  Why,  even  from  yourselves,  do  you  not  decide 
on  what  is  right?  For,  as  thou  art  going  with  thy  adversary 
to  the  magistrate,  strive  on  the  way  that  he  may  let  thee  go  free, 
lest  he  drag  thee  before  the  judge,  and  the  judge  deliver  thee 
over  to  the  officer,  and  the  officer  cast  thee  into  prison.  I  tell 
thee,  that  thou  wilt  not  come  out  thence  till  thou  hast  paid  the 
uttermost  farthing." 

Here  our  Saviour  is  represented  as  reproaching  the  bigoted 
Jews  for  their  blindness  to  the  character  of  the  times,  by  which 

*  The  word  translated  "adversary,"  in  the  Common  Version,  properly 
means  adversary  in  a  suit  at  law;  and  the  person  here  intended  by  the 
term  is  the  same  as  "  thy  brother  who  has  a  charge  against  thee  " 

t  The  conception  appears  to  be  of  the  person  who  has  injured  his  brother, 
meeting  him  in  the  public  way,  as  he  himself,  having  left  the  altar,  is  seek- 
ing him.  The  words,  however,  may  be  understood  as  they  are  by  Luke,  — 
"Whilst  thou  art  on  the  way  with  him,"  that  is,  to  the  judge;  the  literal 
meaning  being,  "  before  thou  art  called  to  account  for  thy  sin  against  him." 

X  Luke  xii.  56-59. 


CORRESPONDENCES  OF  THE  GOSPELS.      533 

is  meant,  to  those  proofs  of  a  divine  interposition  which  his  minis- 
try was  continually  affording.  Even  if  these  proofs  were  less 
striking,  they  might  judge  from  themselves  what  it  was  right  for 
them  to  do ;  which  was  to  secure  the  favor  of  God,  and  to  obtain 
from  him  pardon  of  their  sins  by  reformation.  Otherwise,  they 
would  be  acting  as  one  who  should  make  no  effort  to  propitiate 
his  creditor  (as  he  might  do),  and  who,  in  consequence,  should 
be  condemned  to  imprisonment  till  the  full  amount  of  his  debt 
was  paid ;  that  is,  they  would  remain  exposed  to  the  full  punish- 
ment of  their  sins.  The  figurative  language  here  used  is  illus- 
trated by  that  of  the  parable  *  concerning  the  servant,  to  whom 
his  master  first  forgave  a  debt,  and  afterward  enforced  its  pay- 
ment, on  account  of  the  cruelty  of  that  servant  toward  one  of 
his  fellows.  "And  his  master,  being  angry  Avith  him,  delivered 
him  to  the  executioners  of  the  law,  till  he  should  pay  all  that 
lie  owed." 

It  is  true,  that  Jesus  may  have  used  the  same  or  similar  words 
and  figures  in  different  senses  on  different  occasions.  But,  as 
regards  this  passage  in  Luke,  there  is  not  merely  the  fact,  that 
the  words  are  found  in  Matthew  with  another  connection  and 
meaning;  but  the  obscurity  of  the  passage  itself,  the  want  of 
obvious  adaptation  of  one  part  to  another,  and  the  difficulty  in 
discovering  the  relations  of  the  ideas,  serve  to  show,  that  ex- 
pressions have  been  brought  together  which  were  not  originally 
connected. 

II.  Luke's  Gospel  presents  cases  of  another  kind,  in  which, 
though  the  meaning  of  the  words  of  our  Saviour  is  not  changed 
essentially,  or  perhaps  not  at  all,  yet,  through  some  leading  asso- 
ciation in  the  mind  of  the  evangelist,  they  are  brought  together 
in  a  new  connection,  and  applied  to  a  subject  to  which  they  did 
not  primarily  relate.  Thus,  after  the  appointment  of  the  apostles, 
Matthew  represents  their  Master  as  giving  them  directions  appro- 
priate to  their  peculiar  duties.  For  these,  Luke  has  substituted 
a  series  of  more  general  declarations  and  precepts,  taken  prin- 
cipally from  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Yet  it  will  be  perceived 
by  one  who  reads  his  collection  attentively,  that  he  had,  through- 

»  Matt,  xviii.  23-35. 


534  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

out,  the  peculiar  case  of  the  apostles  in  his  mind,  and  regarded 
the  words  which  he  has  given  as  specifically  referring  to  them. 
In  this  respect,  the  discourse  has  the  character  which  is  shown  in 
the  first  words  of  it,  as  compared  with  those  in  Matthew.  Instead 
of  "  Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit,"  Luke  gives,  as  a  direct 
address  to  the  apostles,  "Blessed  are  ye  poor." 

From  inattention  to  this  circumstance,  there  has  been  sup- 
posed to  bo  a  want  of  connection  in  the  discourse,  which  does 
not  appear  when  it  is  viewed  under  its  proper  aspect.  This 
may  be  illustrated  in  that  portion  of  it  which  has  been  regarded 
as  least  coherent. 

After  inculcating  virtues  which  were  peculiarly  required  In  the 
apostles,  —  love  of  enemies,  irresistance  to  injury,  disregard  of 
their  private  rights,  universal  benevolence  and  kindness,  free- 
dom from  hasty  judgment,  and  the  doing  good  to  others  in  full 
measure,  —  the  discourse  thus  proceeds  to  enforce  the  necessity 
of  their  rightly  apprehending  and  fully  performing  their  own 
duty  in  order  to  qualify  them  to  be  teachers  of  others.* 

**  Then  he  spoke  to  them  in  a  figure  :  —  Can  the  blind  lead  the 
blind  ?  Will  they  not  both  fall  into  a  ditch  ?  f  A  disciple  is  not 
above  his  teacher,  but  every  one  properly  prepared  will  be  as 
his  teacher.  %  Why  dost  thou  look  at  the  straw  in  thy  brother's 
eye,  and  not  consider  the  beam  in  thine  own  eye  ?  Or  how  canst 
thou  say  to  thy  brother.  Brother,  let  me  take  out  the  straw  which 
is  in  thine  eye,  whilst  thou  perceivest  not  the  beam  which  is  in 
thine  own  eye?  Hypocrite  !  first  put  the  beam  out  of  thine  own 
eye,  and  then  thou  wilt  see  clearly  to  take  the  straw  out  of  thy 
brother's  eye.  §  No  good  tree  produces  bad  fruit,  nor  does  a 
bad  tree  produce  good  fruit;  for  every  tree  is  known  by  its 
fruit.  Men  do  not  gather  figs  from  thorns,  nor  grapes  from  a 
bramble.  ||     The  good  man,   out  of  the  good  storehouse  of  his 

*  Luke  vi.  39-45. 

t  See  Matt.  xv.  14,  whence  it  appears  that  this  language  Avas  used 
by  Jesus  concerning  the  false  teaching  of  the  Pharisees. 

i  Comp.  Matt.  x.  24;  John  xiii.  16  and  xv.  20. 

§  Comp.  Matt.  vii.  3-5. 

II  See  Matt.  vii.  16-18,  where  this  figurative  language  is  connected 
with  the  direction  to  "beware  of  false  feac/icrs;  "  and  Matt.  xii.  33,  v/^Ik  re 
Jesus  demands  that  the  test  here  given  should  be  applied  to  his  own  teach- 
ing and  character. 


CORRESPONDENCES  OF  THE  GOSPELS.      635 

mind,  produces  what  is  good;  and  the  bad  man,  out  of  the  bad 
storehouse  of  his  mind,  produces  what  is  bad :  for  the  mouth 
speaks  from  the  fulness  of  the  mind."* 

These  sayings  are  all  connected  together,  and  connected  with 
the  rest  of  the  discourse,  as  all  relating  to  the  character  re(|uired 
in  a  moral  and  religious  teacher.  That  the  tone  which  runs 
through  them  is  not  altogether  what  we  might  expect  in  an 
address  of  Jesus  to  his  apostles,  is  to  be  accounted  for  by  the 
fact,  that  their  original  reference  was  different  from  what  is  here 
assigned  them.  Their  application,  likewise,  is  to  be  conceived 
of  as  hypothetical,  not  direct ;  as  pointed  against  faults  of  char- 
acter Avhich  the  apostles  were  to  avoid,  not  which  they  were 
supposed  to  have. 

With  one  exception,  these  sayings,  though  their  reference  is 
changed,  retain  their  original  meaning.  The  exception  to  which 
I  refer  is  in  the  words,  "A  disciple  is  not  above  his  teacher; 
but  every  one  properly  prepared  will  be  as  his  teacher ; "  the 
meaning  of  which,  in  their  present  connection,  is,  that  he  will 
be  as  his  teacher  in  ability  to  communicate  instruction :  but  this 
is  not  the  sense  of  the  corresponding  passages  of  Matthew  and 
John,  which  have  been, noted  in  the  margin.  There  the  meaning 
is,  that  the  apostles  must  not  expect  to  be  better  treated  than 
their  Master,  and  must  be  as  ready  to  humble  themselves  as 
he  was. 

III.  Occasionally,  St.  Luke,  after  giving  the  words  of  our 
Saviour  on  some  particular  occasion,  seems  to  have  subjoined 
other  words,  uttered  by  him  at  a  different  time,  as  a  sort  of 
commentary  on  what  he  then  said,  or  on  the  incident  related, 
without  intending  that  the  latter  words  should  be  conjoined  with 
the  precedmg  as  forming  one  discourse,  but  also  without  suffi- 
ciently discriminating  them ;  so  that  a  degree  of  confusion  and 
obscurity  is  produced. 

Thus,  the  parable  of  the  dishonest  steward  f  is  concluded  with 
exhortations  to  the  proper  use  of  riches,  ending  with  the  declara- 
tion, "Ye  cannot  be  servants  of  God  and  of  Mammon."  After 
which,  the  narrative  of  Luke  thus  proceeds :  J  — 

*  Comp.  Matt.  xii.  34,  35.      f  Luke  xvi.  1-13.      J  Luke  xvi.  14-18. 


636  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

*•  And  the  Pharisees,  who  were  lovers  of  money,  heard  all  this, 
and  scoffed  at  him.  And  he  said  to  them,  Ye  make  yourselves 
appear  righteous  in  the  sight  of  men,  but  God  knows  your 
hearts.  For  what  is  highly  exalted  among  men  is  an  abomina- 
tion before  God. 

"The  Law  and  the  Prophets  were  till  John.  Since  then  the 
kingdom  of  God  has  been  announced,  and  every  one  is  forcing 
into  it.  But  heaven  and  earth  may  pass  away  more  easily  than 
one  tittle  fall  from  the  Law. 

"Whoever  puts  away  his  wife,  and  marries  another,  commits 
adultery ;  and  he  Avho  marries  her  who  was  put  away  commits 
adultery." 

After  this  follows  the  parable  of  Dives  and  Lazarus. 

Here,  at  first  view,  no  connection  appears ;  but  the  train 
of  thought  admits  of  an  explanation  upon  the  principle  just 
stated. 

St.  Luke  having  recorded  the  declaration  of  Jesus,  that  the 
Pharisees,  who  were  highly  exalted  among  men,  were  an  abomina- 
tion before  God,  his  thoughts  turned  to  that  part  of  their  char- 
acter on  which  they  particularly  prided  themselves, — their  strict 
observance  of  the  Law,  that  is,  the  ceremonies  and  rites  of 
the  Law ;  and  this  led  him  to  insert  those  words  of  his  Master 
which  announced  that  these  ceremonies  and  rites  were  abolished 
by  Christianity,  that  they  were  virtually  abrogated  when  John 
proclaimed  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  But  with  these  words,  as 
uttered  by  Jesus,  was  connected  an  incidental  or  parenthetical 
remark,  which  is  thus  given  by  Matthew:*  "From  the  days 
of  John  the  Baptist  until  now,  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  forcing 
its  way,  and  the  violent  are  seizing  upon  it^  I  refer  to  the  last 
words,  which  are  thus  expressed  by  Luke:  "and  every  one  is 
forcing  into  it."  In  these  words  I  suppose  Jesus  to  have  referred 
to  those  many  Jews,  who,  possessed  with  false  notions  of  the 
character  of  the  Messiah,  as  a  deliverer  from  the  tyranny  of 
the  Romans,  and  ready  for  deeds  of  violence,  were  eager  to 
enlist  as  his  followers,  striving  to  force  themselves  upon  him 
without  any  of  the  dispositions  which  he  required  in  his  disciples. 
The  words  in  question,  as  given  by  Luke,  are  out  of  place,  and 

*  Matt.  xi.  12. 


CORRESPONDENCES  OF  THE  GOSPELS.      537 

appear  only  in  consequence  of  their  original  connection  with 
ihoi<e  which  precede. 

But,  having  introduced  this  mention  of  the  abolition  of  the 
ritual  Law,  Luke  proceeds  to  limit  the  language  in  which  it  is 
expressed,  by  another  declaration  of  our  Lord:  "Heaven  and 
earth  may  pass  away  more  easily  than  one  tittle  fall  from  the 
Law."  "The  Law  "is  a  term  used  in  the  New  Testament  in 
various  senses,  and  with  a  very  different  force  and  bearing  in 
different  connections.  In  the  mouth  of  a  Jew,  it  denoted,  in  one 
of  its  meanings,  the  whole  of  religion  as  understood  by  him.  The 
Law,  or  the  Law  of  God, — for  the  terms  were  equivalent,  — was 
his  religion.  In  this  sense  the  expression  might  be  "the  Law" 
simply,  or  "the  Law  and  the  Prophets."  By  our  Saviour,  either 
term  was  used  in  an  analogous  sense,  to  denote  those  essential 
truths  of  religion  and  morality,  which  alone  constitute  the  Old 
Testament,  or  any  part  of  it,  a  book  of  religious  instruction,  and 
entitle  it  to  be  called  by  the  name  of  "the  Law."  These,  the 
true  Law  of  God.  could  never  be  abrogated.  Heaven  and  earth 
might  pass  away,  but  they  would  remain  unchangeable.  Using 
the  term  in  this  meaning,  he  declares,  "  that  to  do  to  others  as  we 
would  that  they  should  do  to  us  is  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,"  — 
that  is,  a  summary  of  all  the  social  duties  taught  by  them ;  and, 
elsewhere,  that  the  whole  Law  and  the  Prophets  depend  on  love 
to  God  and  love  to  man.  This  was  the  Law  from  which  not  the 
smallest  letter  nor  tittle  could  pass  away  ;  and  this  Law  the  Phari- 
sees, instead  of  observing,  were  continually  violating,  and  were 
thus  an  abomination  before  God. 

The  passage  respecting  divorce  is  introduced  with  reference  to 
the  sanction  which  the  Pharisees  gave  to  the  greatest  license,  in 
this  respect,  on  the  part  of  the  husband.  No  instance,  perhaps, 
could  have  been  chosen  which  would  have  presented  in  stronger 
contrast  their  avowed  morality  with  the  morality  taught  by 
Christ. 

The  parable  of  Dives  and  Lazarus  has  no  relation  to  the  Phari- 
sees ;  for,  considering  their  austerity  of  manners,  Jesus  could  not 
have  typified  them  by  one  who  "  feasted  sumptuously  every  day." 
It  was  suggestiid  to  the  recollection  of  the  evangelist  by  the  dis- 
course of  our  Saviour  respecting  the  use  and  misuse  of  wealth, 
which  gave  occasion  to  all  on  which  we  have  been  remarking. 


538  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

IV.  In  other  Instances,  St.  Luke  has  given  fragments  of  what 
was  said  by  our  Saviour  at  a  particular  time,  omitting  the  con- 
necting and  explanatory  passages :  so  that,  though  the  sense  of 
every  part  might  be  clear  to  his  own  mind,  or  to  the  minds  of  those 
possessed  of  the  information  current  among  the  first  Christians, 
yet  it  is  not,  at  the  present  day,  discernible  from  his  Gospel  alone  ; 
and  we  learn  it  only  by  a  comparison  of  his  accounts  with  those 
of  Matthew. 

Matthew  has  preserved  the  striking  and  appropriate  discourse 
delivered  by  Jesus,  when,  after  his  curing  a  demoniac,  the  Phari- 
sees said,  "  This  man  casts  out  demons  only  through  Beelzebub, 
the  prince  of  demons."*  In  immediate  connection,  the  evangel- 
ist proceeds  thus  :  f  "  Then  some  of  the  teachers  of  the  Law  and 
the  Pharisees  spoke,  saying.  Teacher,  we  wish  to  see'  a  sign  from 
thee.  But  he  answered  them,  A  wicked  and  apostate  race  would 
have  a  sign ;  but  no  sign  will  be  given  it,  except  the  sign  of 
Jonah  the  prophet."  Jesus  then  speaks  in  strong  figurative 
language  of  the  depravity  and  indocility  of  the  race  with  whom 
he  had  to  do,  concluding  thus :  J  — 

"When  an  unclean  spirit  has  gone  out  of  a  man,  it  passes 
through  desert  places  in  search  of  rest,  and  finds  it  not.  Then  it 
says,  I  will  return  to  my  house  whence  I  came  out;  and,  upon 
returning,  it  finds  the  house  unoccupied,  swept,  and  put  in  order. 
Then  it  goes  and  brings  with  it  seven  other  spirits  worse  than 
itself,  and  they  enter  in  and  dwell  there ;  and  the  last  state  of 
that  man  is  worse  than  the  first.  So  will  it  be  with  this  evil 
race." 

The  evil  race  spoken  of  was  the  great  body  of  the  Jews.  The 
nation  is  compared  to  an  incurable  madman,  who,  after  an  interval 
of  quiet,  relapses  Into  more  violent  insanity.  The  figure  was 
suggested  by  the  cure  of  the  demoniac,  which  gave  occasion  to 
the  discourse.  To  understand  its  application,  we  must  consider, 
that  the  Jews,  since  their  return  from  the  Babylonish  captivity, 
had  not  fallen  into  idolatry,  and  did  not  regard  themselves  as 
exposed  to  punishment  from  God.  They  thought  themselves 
much  better  than  their  countrymen  of  former  times.  They  said, 
"  If  we  had  lived  in  the  days  of  our  fathers,  we  would  not  have 

*  See  Matt.  xii.  22-37.       f  Matt.  xii.  38,  seqq.       J  Matt.  xii.  43-45. 


CORRESPONDENCES  OF  THE  GOSPELS.      539 

been  partners  with  them  in  slaying  the  prophets."  *  But  they 
hated,  and  were  about  to  cause  the  death  of,  Jesus,  the  greatest 
of  God's  messengers  to  their  nation,  and  to  display  their  enmity 
toward  his  disciples,  as  their  fathers  had  persecuted  and  put  to 
death  their  religious  teachers.  They  were  about  to  manifest,  in 
a  manner  still  more  outrageous,  the  same  disobedience  which 
their  predecessors  had  shown.  The  interval  of  seeming  amend- 
ment in  the  nation  was  no  real  change  for  the  better.  The  evil 
spirit  had  returned,  and  found  his  house  prepared  for  his  recep- 
tion, and  entered  in  with  seven  other  spirits  worse  than  himself. 

In  Luke,  the  passage  remarked  upon  appears  almost  in  the 
same  words. f  But,  after  giving  a  portion  of  our  Saviour's  first 
reply  to  the  Pharisees,  he  immediately  subjoins  this  passage, 
separated  from  its  proper  conne(;tion,  and  without  any  thing  to 
explain  it;  for  even  the  last  sentence,  "  So  will  it  be  with  this 
evil  race,"  is  omitted.  It  would  be  impossible,  from  Luke's  Gos- 
pel alone,  to  determine  its  reference  and  ultimate  meaning. 

V.  In  one  instance,  a  portion  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount, 
we  have  found  a  discourse  of  Jesus  referred  by  Luke  to  an  occa- 
sion on  Avhich  it  was  not  delivered.  Another  striking  example 
of  the  same  kind  occurs,  I  believe,  in  the  discourse  consisting  of 
a  series  of  denunciations  against  the  Pharisees.  This  has  the 
appearance  of  having  been  one  of  the  last  and  most  solemn  acts 
of  the  ministry  of  Jesus.  It  is  represented  by  Matthew  as  hav- 
ing been  delivered  by  him  at  Jerusalem,  only  two  days  before 
his  death,  in  the  temple,  which  he  had  then  entered  for  the  last 
time,  amid  a  concourse  of  people,  among  whom  many  of  the 
Pharisees  were  standing  as  listeners.  According  to  Matthew,  he 
concluded  it  thus  :  J  — 

"Jerusalem!  Jerusalem!  who  killest  the  teachers  and  stonest 
those  who  are  sent  to  thee,  how  often  would  I  have  gathered  thy 
children  together  as  a  bird  gathers  her  young  under  her  wings ; 
and  ye  would  not !  Behold !  your  house  is  left  you  deserted. 
For  I  declare  to  you.  Ye  shall  not  see  me  henceforth,  till  ye  shall 
say.  Blessed  is  he  who  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord. 

"  And  Jesus  went  out,  and  left  the  temple." 

*  Matt,  xxiii.  30.         t  Luke  xi.  24-26.        J  See  Matt,  xxiii.  13-39. 


540  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

The  words  of  Jesus,  just  quoted,  are  misplaced  by  Luke,  and 
their  meaning  obscured  in  consequence.*  It  is  obvious  what  a 
most  striking  conclusion  they  form  to  the  discourse,  if  we  regard 
it  as  it  appears  in  Matthew. 

Till  his  business  on  earth  drew  towards  its  accomplishment,  it 
would  not  have  been  the  part  of  wisdom  in  Jesus  to  exasperate 
to  the  uttermost  the  passions  of  the  Pharisees,  especially  under 
circumstances  which  put  his  life  in  their  power.  Nor  till  his 
apostles  and  other  followers  had  been  formed  to  their  duties,  as 
far  as  might  be,  by  his  personal  influence,  would  it  have  been 
prudent  to  place  them  in  such  open  and  irreconcilable  opposition 
to  those  whose  sanctity,  and  whose  authority  as  religious  teachers, 
had  been  so  reverenced  by  their  countrymen.  But  the  deadly 
hatred  of  the  Pharisees  was  no  longer  to  be  avoided :  it  was  to 
be  encountered ;  and  his  followers  had  received,  and  were  just 
about  to  receive  in  his  resurrection  from  the  dead,  evidence 
which  could  leave  no  doubt  in  their  minds  of  his  divine  mission. 
Accordingly,  though  in  Matthew's  account  of  the  preaching  of 
Jesus  wo  find  previously  strong  expressions  of  censure  upon  the 
Pharisees  or  upon  some  of  their  number,  yet  there  is  nothing  at 
once  so  plain  and  unreserved  in  its  meaning,  so  direct  and  gen- 
eral in  its  application,  so  terrible  in  its  reproaches  and  denuncia- 
tions, and  pronounced  so  formally  and  solemnly  to  a  public 
assembly  representing  the  whole  Jewish  nation.  Every  thing 
now  conspired  to  give  weight  to  his  words.  The  utterance  of 
them  appears  not  as  an  incidental  act  of  his  ministry,  but  as 
purposed  beforehand,  as  a  main  object  of  it ;  as  a  testimony 
delivered  in  the  name  of  God,  not  against  the  character  of  the 
Pharisees  alone,  but  against  hypocrisy  and  bigotry,  whatever 
forms  they  might  assume. 

All,  therefore,  according  to  the  narrative  of  Matthew,  is  con- 
sistent. But  Luke  represents  a  considerable  part  of  this  discourse 
against  the  Pharisees  as  having  been  uttered  somewhere  at  a 
distance  from  Jerusalem,  at  a  private  house,  —  the  house  of 
a  Pharisee,  who  had,  at  least  w^ith  a  show  of  hospitality,  invited 
Jesus  as  a  guest.f  The  occasion,  likewise,  assigned  by  Luke, 
does  not  seem  such  as  the  discourse  required.     The  evangelist 

*  See  Luke  xiii.  34,  35.  f  Luke  xi.  37-52. 


CORRESPONDENCES  OF  THE  GOSPELS.      541 

Bays:  "Now,  while  he  was  teaching,  a  Pharisee  asked  him  to 
dine  with  him.  And  he  entered,  and  placed  himself  at  table. 
But  the  Pharisee  wondered,  when  he  saw  that  he  did  not  Avash 
his  hands  before  dinner  [conformably  to  a  ceremony  of  the 
Jews,  to  which  they  attached  great  importance] .  But  the  Lord 
«aid  to  him.  Now,  you  Pharisees  make  clean  the  outside  of  the 
cup  and  dish,  but  ye  are  full  within  of  rapacity  and  wicked- 
ness." And  then  follows,  with  some  variation  in  the  report, 
a  great  part  of  the  discourse  which  is  given  by  Matthew  as  de- 
livered in  the  temple  at  Jerusalem.  The  misplacing  of  this 
discourse  by  Luke  may  be  accounted  for  by  the  supposition,  that 
Jesus  did,  on  the  occasion  to  which  this  evangelist  has  referred 
it,  make  some  comments  on  the  superstitious  observances  of  the 
Pharisees,  and  speak  of  their  worthlessness,  contrasting  it  with 
the  importance  of  justice,  mercy,  and  truth. 

VI.  One  other  characteristic  of  Luke's  Gospel  remains  to  be 
mentioned.  He  gives  different  discourses  of  Jesus,  with  so 
slight  a  form  of  transition  from  one  to  another,  or  perhaps  with- 
out any,  that  they  all  appear,  at  first  view,  either  to  form  but  one 
discourse,  or  to  have  been  delivered  consecutively.  Some  dis- 
courses of  our  Lord,  we  may  suppose,  had  been  blended  together 
in  the  oral  teaching  of  the  apostles,  as  relating  to  the  same 
subject,  or  as  illustrating  each  other ;  and  some  may  have  been 
narrated  without  mention  of  the  occasion  on  which  they  were 
delivered,  this  occasion  not  being  of  particular  interest.  As  Luke 
was  unacquaintecf  with  the  chronological  order  and  original  rela- 
tion of  these  discourses,  he  has  collected  and  placed  them  miscel- 
laneously, without  carefully  separating  one  from  another.  An 
example  of  this  is  furnished  by  that  portion  of  his  Gospel  which 
begins  with  the  fourteenth  verse  of  the  eleventh  chapter,  and 
ends  with  the  ninth  verse  of  the  thirteenth  chapter. 

This  view  of  the  formation  and  character  of  Luke's  Gospel 
may  assist  us  in  understanding  it,  and  solve  some  difficulties  with 
which  we  might  otherwise  be  embarrassed.  But  the  considera- 
tion of  the  phenomena  that  have  been  pointed  out  leads  to  a 
further  conclusion.  It  is  difficult  to  state  them  without  implying 
the   circumstances   in  which   they  had   their   origin.      They  are 


642  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

accounted  for  at  once,  if  we  suppose  that  the  apostles,  regarding 
the  words  of  their  Master  as  embodying  the  truths  of  his  religion, 
were  accustomed  to  bring  them  together  in  different  forms,  to 
apply  them  on  various  occasions,  and  sometimes  to  change  their 
original  sense,  and  adapt  striking  expressions  to  a  new  subject; 
and  that,  such  being  the  case,  they  were  collected  and  arranged 
by  one  who,  like  St.  Luke,  was  not  personally  conversant  with 
Jesus,  but  derived  his  information  from  the  preaching  and  con- 
versation of  his  immediate  followers.  This  solution  explains  all 
the  appearances  presented,  and  I  know  of  no  other  which  will 
explain  them.  But  this  solution  rests  on  the  belief,  that  the 
words  recorded  in  the  first  three  Gospels  were  uttered  by  Jesus 


Section  VII. 
Concluding  Remarks. 

It  has  been  my  purpose  to  show,  that,  when  we  consider  the 
agreements  and  differences  among  the  first  three  Gospels,  we 
find  their  character  to  be  such  as  cannot  be  accounted  for  by  the 
supposition,  that  the  evangelists  copied  either  one  from  another, 
or  all  from  common  written  documents.  Some  common  arche- 
type, however,  they  must  have  had :  the  corresponding  passages 
which  we  find  in  them,  if  they  did  not  previously  exist  in  a 
determinate  written  form,  must  have  existed  orally  in  forms 
nearly  resembling  those  which  they  now  present :  and  this  suppo- 
sition of  a  model,  partly  fixed  by  a  regard  to  truth  and  by 
frequent  repetition,  and  partly  fluctuating  through  the  changes 
of  oral  narration,  is  the  only  one  that  accounts  satisfactorily  for 
the  phenomena  presented. 

But  the  narratives  Avhich  the  evangelists  have  thus  transmitted 
to  us  were  the  original  accounts  of  the  apostles  and  first  preachers 
of  Christianity.  This  appears  from  the  accordance  of  the  Gospels 
with  each  other  In  the  view  which  they  present  of  the  marvellous 
character  and  ministry  of  Christ.  Accounts  so  wonderful,  es- 
pecially if  one  fancy  them  unfounded  in  truth,  would  have  been 
distorted  in  many  different  ways,  with  or  without  some  dishonest 
purpose,  if  abandoned  to  oral  tradition,  floating  through  different 
countries,  and  received  and   transmitted   by  thousands  of  new 


CORRESPONDENCES  OF  THE  GOSPELS.      543 

converts.  We  cannot  suppose,  that,  after  the  apostolic  age, 
three  unconnected  writers,  founding  their  narratives  upon  oral 
accounts  alone,  Avould  have  harmonized  together  as  do  the  three 
evangelists,*  The  agreement  and  difference  among  these  Gos- 
pels present  a  very  extraordinary,  or  rather  a  unique,  phenome- 
non, which  requires  a  peculiar  cause  for  its  solution;  and  this 
cause  is,  I  think,  to  be  found  only  in  the  fact,- that  thev  were  all 
based  upon  unwritten  narratives,  which  had,  as  yet,  lost  nothing 
of  their  original  character ;  and  which,  therefore,  were  the  narra- 
tives, true  or  fiilse,  of  the  first  preachers  of  the  religion. 

In  reading  those  Gospels,  therefore,  we  are,  in  effect,  listening 
to  the  very  words  of  the  apostles  ;  we  are,  if  I  may  so  speak,  intro- 
duced into  their  presence,  to  receive  their  testimony  concerning 
deeds  and  words  which  they  affirm  that  they  saw  and  heard,  and 
miracles  of  such  a  chai-acter,  that  it  would  be  idle  to  suppose  them 
deceived  or  mistaken  in  their  reports.  The  question,  then,  con- 
cerning the  truth  of  Christianity,  under  this  aspect  of  its  evidences, 
lies  within  a  narrow  compass.  Realize,  as  far  as  you  can,  the 
characters  and  circumstances  of  the  apostles ;  place  yourselves,  in 
imagination,  in  their  presence ;  attend  to  their  testimony ;  and 
search  for  every  motive  and  feeling  that  might  lead  them,  all 
in  common,  at  the  hazard  of  ev^ry  worldly  good,  to  persist  in 
asserting  the  truth  of  stories  which  they  knew,  and  thousands 
of  their  hearers  knew,  and  all  might  know,  to  be  false.  Just 
so  far  as  any  probable  motive  may  be  assigned  for  such  conduct, 
just  so  far,  anU  no  further,  may  the  truth  of  Christianity  be 
rendered  doubtful. 

Thus,  if  we  have  reasoned  rightly,  an  inquiry  which  might,  at 
lirst  view,  seem  to  many  a  matter  of  curiosity  rather  than  of  great 
interest,  has  led  us  to  some  important  conclusions  ;  among  which  the 
most  remarkable  is,  that  the  very  structure  of  the  first  three 
Gospels  affords,  when  they  are  compared  together,  proof  of  the 
history  they  contain,  and,  consequently,  of  the  miraculous  origin 
of  our  religion.  Such  a  result  from  a  proper  examination,  and  a 
correct  view,  of  the  very  peculiar  phenomena  of  those  Gospels, 
was  perhaps  to  be  expected. 

*  See  before,  p.  98,  seqq. 


544  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

Whether  we  regard  the  history  of  Christ  as  true  or  false,  there 
can  be  no  question,  that  the  establishment  of  Christianity  is  the 
most  memorable  event  in  the  history  of  our  race,  that  which  has 
produced  the  greatest  and  most  permanent  effects  upon  the  char- 
acter and  condition  of  men.  To  produce  such  results,  some  most 
extraordinary  cause  or  causes  must  have  been  in  operation.  But 
if  the  account  of  those  causes  which  we,  as  Christians,  receive,  be 
not  true,  the  whole  early  history  of  Christianity  will  assume  a  new 
aspect.  Imagine  fraud,  enthusiasm,  mistake,  singular  combina- 
tions of  circumstances,  —  all  or  any  thing  that  can  be  moulded  into 
a  plausible  scheme  to  account  for  the  origin  and  rapid  progress  of 
our  religion ;  still,  if  it  was  not,  as  represented,  a  religion  from 
God,  established  by  miraculous  proof,  all  its  original  bearings 
upon  every  individual,  and  every  subject  with  which  it  had  rela- 
tion, must  have  been  essentially  different  from  what  Ave  conceive 
them  to  have  been.  As  we  suppose  the  religion  true  or  false,  we 
are  obliged  to  suppose  causes  in  action  of  the  most  opposite  char- 
acter, —  the  power  of  God  in  one  case,  and  fraud  and  delusion,  or 
error,  of  whatever  kind  it  may  be  fancied,  in  the  other.  But  those 
causes  by  which  Christianity  was  established,  let  us  suppose  them 
what  we  will,  must  have  stamped  their  own  character  ineffaceably 
upon  whatever  was  subjected  to  their  operation.  If  Christianity 
were  false,  we  should  find  clear  marks  of  falsehood  in  the  history 
of  Jesus  ;  in  the  conduct,  preaching,  and  writings  of  those  teachers 
who  immediately  succeeded  him ;  in  the  accounts  of  its  propaga- 
tion ;  in  the  direct  and  indirect  notices  of  its  early  converts  ;  in  its 
real  or  pretended  bearings  upon  the  history  of  the  times ;  and 
especially  in  its  doctrines  and  morals.  We  should  distinguish,  at 
first  sight,  such  an  attempt  to  counterfeit  the  power  and  wisdom 
of  God.  But  truth  is  always  consistent,  and  discovers  itself  in  all 
its  aspects  and  connections ;  and  hence  it  is,  that  we  can  investi- 
gate scarcely  any  subject  relating  to  the  early  history  of  our  re- 
ligion, without  some  new  confirmation  of  our  faith.  Though  many 
parts  of  this  history  are  lost,  yet  many  remain,  spread  over 
a  wide  field,  so  that  we  may  pursue  our  inquiries  through  various 
and  very  different  paths,  all  terminating  in  the  same  conclusion, 
—  the  divine  origin  of  Christianity. 


APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.  545 


Note  C. 

(See  p.  142.) 
ON  THE  WRITINGS  ASCRIBED  TO  APOSTOLICAL  FATHERS. 


Section  I. 

Purpose  of  this  Note. 

The  purpose  of  this  note  is  to  give  some  account  of  the  "  Writings 
of  the  Apostolical  Fathers,"  so  called,  and,  on  the  one  hand,  to 
explain  why  I  have  not  referred  to  them  as  affording  proof  of  the 
genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  to  show  that 
they  do  not,  as  has  been  pretended,*  furnish  any  evidence  that 
other  gospels  wei'e  in  common  use  before  those  which  we  now 
possess. 

They  are  called  Writings  of  Apostolical  Fathers  because  they 
are,  or  have  been  supposed  to  be,  writings  of  individuals  who 
were  conversant  with  some  one  or  more  of  the  apostles.  I  limit 
the  term  in  the  following  remarks  to  those  about  the  genuineness, 
or  very  early  date,  of  which  any  controversy  may  be  supposed  to 
remain ;  and,  in  treating  this  subject,  I  am  compelled,  as  will  be 
perceived,  to  differ  from  Lardner,  a  writer  never  to  be  spoken  of 
without  respect,  and  consequently  from  Paley,  who  follows  him,  in 
my  views  of  the  Avorks  themselves,  and  of  their  importance  as 
regards  our  general  subject. 

Though  these  writings  have  been  considered  as  among  the  ear- 
liest memorials  of  Christianity,  yet  it  is  remarkable  how  unsettled 
are  the  questions  concerning  their  genuineness,  anticpiity,  and 
value,  and  how  little  they  have  been  attended  to  by  many  of  those 
who  seemed  particularly  called  upon  to  investigate  the  subject. 
The  few  remarks  that  Lardner  has  made  concerning  the  authority 

*  Eichhorn's  Einleit.  in  d.  N.T.,  i.  113-140.    See  before,  pp.  61,  62. 
35 


546  ADDITIONAL    NOTES. 

of  those  which  he  quotes  in  proof  of  the  credibility  of  the  Gospels 
are  far  from  being  satisfactory ;  and  the  same  may  be  said,  on  the 
other  hand,  of  the  observations  of  Priestley  in  his  "  History  of 
Early  Opinions,"  by  which  he  would  invalidate  their  authority. 
The  German  theologian  Semler,  dogmatizing,  as  usual,  without 
assigning  reasons  for  his  opinion,  pronounces  them  all  spurious, 
or  of  doubtful  credit.*  Little  is  to  be  learnt  from  the  late  eccle- 
siastical histories  of  Neander  and  Gleseler.  Olshausen,  a  modern 
German  writer  of  reputation,  in  his  work  on  the  genuineness  of 
the  Gospels,  declines  discussing  the  genuineness  of  the  writings  in 
question,  as  having  no  bearing  on  his  main  inquiry  ;  but  affirms 
them  all,  except  "  The  Second  Epistle  of  Clement,"  so  called,  to 
be  among  the  oldest  Christian  writings  extant. f  And  some  other 
modern  German  theologians  quote  them  almost  indiscriminately, 
as  if  they  were  works  of  established  authority. 

But,  notwithstanding  the  apparently  unsettled  state  of  opinion 
respecting  these  writings,  I  think  we  ma\  arrive  at  some  definite 
and  satisfactory  conclusions  concerning  them.  J 


Section  II. 

The  Epistle  of  Clement  of  Rome  to  the  Corinthians.     Another 
Epistle  ascribed  to  Clement. 

The  first  work  we  shall  notice  is  the  Epistle  of  Clement  of 
Rome,  written  in  the  name  of  the  church  at  Rome,  where  he  was 
bisliop  or  presiding  officer,  or  perhaps  only  a  distinguished  pres- 
byter, to  the  church  at  Corinth,  upon  occasion  of  some  dissensions 
which  there  prevailed.  Only  a  single  manuscript  copy  of  the  work 
is  extant,  at  the  end  of  the  Alexandrine  manuscript  of  the  Scrip- 


*  Comment.  Historici  de  Antiquo  Christianorum  Statu,  torn.  5.  pp  39,  40. 

t  Die  Echtheit  der  vier  canonischen  Evangelien  erwiesen,  p  411. 

X  A  translation  of  the  writings  in  question  was  published  by  Arclibishop 
Wake,  in  1693,  under  the  title  of  "  The  Genuine  Epistles  of  the  Apostolical 
Fathers,"  &c.,  with  a  pvernninary  discourse.  It  has  since  been  several  times 
reprinted;  one  edition  having  appeared  at  New  York  in  IS  10.  But  the 
work  is  poorly  executed.  The  preliminary  discourse  is  deficient  in  good 
sense,  and  the  translations  in  correctness  and  m  appropriateness  of  language. 


APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.  547 

tures.  This  copy  Is  considerably  mutilated ;  in  some  passa^^cs  tlie 
text  is  manifestly  corrupt,  and  other  passages  have  been  suspected 
of  being  interpolations. 

The  evidence  for  the  genuineness  of  this  Epistle  —  that  is,  for 
the  fact,  that  the  Epistle,  as  now  extant,  was  in  the  main  written 
by  Clement  —  seems  to  be  full  and  satisfactory. 

IreniEus,  appealing  to  the  doctrines  of  Clement,  as  opposed  to 
those  of  the  Gnostics,  says  that  Clement  had  seen  the  apostles,  and 
had  been  connected  with  them,  and  that,  when  he  became  bishop, 
their  preaching  was  still  sounding  in  men's  ears,  and  many  were 
living  who  had  been  taught  by  them ;  and  then  proceeds  to  allege 
the  Epistle  in  question,  describing  it  as  written  by  the  church 
of  Rome  to  that  of  Corinth,  and  giving  a  general  account  of  its 
character.* 

Dionysius,  Bishop  of  Corinth  about  the  year  170,  wrote  seven 
Epistles,  now  lost,  to  different  churches.  One  of  these  was  ad- 
dressed to  the  church  at  Rome,  in  which  he  said  to  them,  as  he  is 
quoted  by  Eusebius,  "To-day  is  the  Lord's  day,  in  which  we 
have  publicly  read  your  Epistle ;  the  reading  of  which,  as  well  as 
of  that  formerly  written  from  you  by  Clement,  will  be  to  us  a  con- 
stant source  of  instruction."  f 

The  Epistle  is  abundantly  quoted,  as  the  work  of  Clement  of 
Rome,  by  Clement  of  Alexandria.  It  is  mentioned  several  times, 
with  high  praise,  by  Eusebius,  who  says  that  its  genuineness  was 
unquestioned ;  and  that  it  had  been  formerly,  and  was  even  in  his 
day,  publicly  read  in  many  churches. J  Photius,  in  the  ninth 
century,  gives  a  particular  criticism  upon  it ;  and,  before  his  time, 
there  is  no  doubt  that  our  present  manuscript  copy  was  written.  § 

Though  the  sentiments  of  this  Epistle  are  commendable,  it 
appears  to  be  the  Avork  of  an  author  of  very  moderate  ability. 
There  are  no  expressions  of  personal  feeling  to  give  it  life  and 
interest.  It  has  the  air  of  a  homily  addressed  to  the  Corinthians 
on  general  topics,  such  as  humility,  order,  peace,  freedom  from 

*  Contra  Haeres.,  lib.  iii.  c  3,  §  3,  p.  176. 

t  Apud  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  iv.  c.  23. 

J  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  iii.  c.  16  et  c.  38. 

§  For  a  full  account  of  the  authorities  in  proof  of  the  genuineness  of  this 
Epistle,  see  the  Veterum  Testimonia,  in  the  edition  of  the  Patres  ApostoUci 
by  Cotelier  and  Le  Clerc,  torn.  i.  pp.  128-132. 


548  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

envy  and  angry  passions,  repentance,  and  Christian  charity,  which 
were  adapted  to  the  state  of  things  existing  among  them.  Its  anti- 
quity, and  the  circumstances  attending  its  composition,  were  prob- 
ably the  principal  causes  of  the  notoriety  and  favor  it  obtained. 

There  seems  no  reason  for  questioning,  that  it  was  written  by 
a  person  named  Clement,  who  held  a  place  in  the  church  at  Rome, 
which  afterwards  caused  him  to  be  entitled  bishop,  and  who  had 
been  conversant  with  apostles.  He  was  supposed  by  some  of  the 
ancients  to  be  the  Clement  mentioned  by  St.  Paul  in  his  Epistle  to 
the  Philippians  (iv.  3)  as  a  fellow-laborer  with  him ;  but  this  is 
doubtful.  Of  the  bearing  of  this  work  on  the  evidence  for  the 
genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  I  shall  speak  hereafter. 

There  was  another  work,  of  which  a  fragment, only  is  extant, 
that  in  the  fourth  century  was  by  some  ascribed  to  Clement,  and 
called  his  "Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians."  At  the  present 
day,  it  is  generally  agreed  that  it  was  not  written  by  him.  It  is 
first  mentioned  by  Eusebius,  who  does  not  regard  it  as  Clement's 
work,  and  says  that  it  was  quoted  by  no  ancient  writer.*  It  was 
evidently  a  work  of  very  little  note  or  credit ;  and  there  is  no 
ground  for  supposing  it  to  have  been  in  existence  much  before  the 
time  when  Eusebius  mentions  it.  Dionysius,  Bishop  of  Corinth 
about  the  year  170,  speaks  oithe  Epistle  of  Clement  to  the  Chris- 
tians of  that  city  in  such  a  manner  as  distinctly  proves  that  he 
knew  nothing  of  any  second  epistle. 

Eichhorn,  in  endeavoring  to  prove  that  the  apostolical  fathers 
had  gospels  different  from  the  four  Gospels,  makes  much  use 
of  this  fragment ;  though  he  does  not  maintain,  that  the  work,  of 
which  it  was  a  part,  was  written  by  Clement,  nor  adduce  any 
argument  to  show  that  it  was  written  before  the  end  of  the  second 
century. f  It  contains  various  quotations  of  words  of  Christ,  most 
of  which  there  is  no  difficulty  in  supposing  to  be  cited,  strictly  or 
loosely,  from  our  present  Gospels.  But,  in  one  place,  Peter  is 
represented  as  interposing  a  question  not  mentioned  in  the  Gos- 
pels ;  and,  in  another,  a  passage  is  quoted  from  an  apocryphal 
book,  called  the  Gospel  of  the  Egyptians,  of  which  I  have  else- 
where given  an  account.  X 

*  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  iii.  c  38.  t  Einleit.  in  d.  N.T.,  i.  122-131. 

X  In  part  iii.  chap.  viii.  of  this  work. 


APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.  549 

The  quotation  of  an  apocryphal  book  by  an  early  Christian 
writer,  or  his  introducing  a  relation  of  something  concerning  the 
history  of  Christ  not  found  in  the  Gospels,  has  no  bearing  to  prove 
that  the  Gospels  were  not  regarded  by  his  contemporaries  and  by 
himself  with  the  highest  respect  as  the  authentic  histories  of  Jesus. 
We  find  such  passages  after  the  period  when  there  is  no  question 
that  the  Gospels  were  so  esteemed.  But,  in  respect  to  the  partic- 
ular case  before  us,  it  is  an  obvious  oversight  to  attempt  to  prove 
that  the  apostolical  fathers  used,  not  our  present  Gospels,  but 
apocryphal  gospels,  from  a  work  which  it  is  not  pretended  was 
written  by  an  apostolical  father,  and  for  the  existence  of  which 
we  have  no  proof  before  the  fourth  century. 


Section  III. 

The  Epistle  of  Polycarp  to  the  Philippians. 

4 
Wliat  may  next  be  mentioned  is  an  Epistle  by  Polycarp,  Bishop 

of  Smyrna,  to  the  church  at  Philippi.  A  portion  of  it  only  is 
extant  in  Greek  :  the  remainder  is  furnished  by  an  old  Latin  trans- 
lation. Polycarp  died  a  martyr  in  the  second  century.  Respect- 
ing the  precise  time  of  his  death,  the  data  are,  I  think,  too 
uncertain  to  afford  ground  for  any  of  the  different  computations 
which  have  been  made.  Irenaeus  twice  mentions  having  known 
him  when  he  himself  Avas  a  young  man.  He  speaks  of  his  dis- 
tinct recollection  of  his  person,  his  manners,  his  way  of  life,  and 
of  his  public  discourses,  in  which  Polycarp,  he  says,  reported  the 
words  of  John  and  of  other  hearers  of  the  Lord  with  whom  he  had 
been  conversant,  and  their  accounts  respecting  the  miracles  and 
doctrine  of  the  Lord,  all  corresponding  to  the  Scriptures.  Ire- 
njeus  relates  that  he  suffered  martyrdom  when  a  very  old  man. 
To  his  Epistle  to  the  Phih'ppians  he  refers,  in  connection  with 
his  reference  to  that  of  Clement  of  Rome,  as  giving  proof  of 
thejDpposition  between  the  doctrine  of  Polycarp  and  that  of  the 
heretics,* 

This  Epistle  is  mentioned  by  other  ancient  writers,  nor  is  there 

*  Contra  Haeres.,  lib.  ill.  c  3,  §  4.    Epist.  ad  Florinum,  i  p.  Euseb.  Hist 
Eccles.,  lib.  v.  c.  20. 


550  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

any  reason  to  doubt  its  genuineness ;  except  that  a  passage  appears 
to  have  been  interpolated  near  its  conclusion,  inconsistent  with 
what  is  found  in  the  preceding  part  of  the  Epistle,  and  fraudulently 
intended  to  give  countenance  to  certain  Epistles  forged  in  the 
name  of  Ignatius,  to  be  mentioned  hereafter.* 

The  Epistle  of  Polycarp  is  a  general  exhortation  to  Christian 
duties.  It  does  not  appear  to  have  had  any  specific  purpose,  but 
to  have  been  occasioned  by  a  request  of  the  Philippians  that  he 
would  write  to  them,  —  a  request  which  not  improbably  had  its 
origin  merely  in  their  respect  for  his  age  and  eminence.  It  is 
founded  on  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament,  and  pervaded  with 
conceptions,  turns  of  expression,  and  quotations,  borrowed  from 
them.  I  shall  speak  of  it  again  in  connection  with  the  Epistle  of 
Clement. 

Section  IV. 

The  Shepherd  of  Her  mas.  * 

There  is  a  work  called  "  The  Shepherd  of  Hermas,''  which  has 
been  regarded  by  some  as  the  production  of  a  fanatic,  who  ima- 
gined that  he  saw  visions,  or  of  an  impostor,  pretending  to  have 


*  The  passage  referred  to  is  what  is  now  numbered  as  the  thirteenth 
section.  In  this,  epistles  of  Ignatius  are  mentioned  as  sent  by  Polycarp  to 
the  Philippians,  annexed  to  his  own. 

In  the  body  of  the  Epistle  (§  9),  Polycarp  says  to  the  Philippians,  "I 
exhort  you  all  to  obey  the  doctrine  of  righteousness,  and  to  exercise  all 
patience,  such  as  ye  saw  before  your  e3'es,  not  only  in  those  blessed  men, 
Ignatius  and  Zosimus  and  Kufus,  but  also  in  others  who  were  of  j'our  num- 
ber, and  in  Paul  himself,  and  the  rest  of  the  apostles;  being  persuaded  that 
they  all  ran  not  in  vain,  but  in  faith  and  righteousness,  and  that  they  are 
with  the  Lord,  with  whom  they  were  fellow-sufferers,  in  the  place  that  was 
due  to  them." 

When  this  passage  was  written,  it  is  evident  that  Ignatius  was  dead ;  nor 
is  his  death  spoken  of  as  if  it  were  a  recent  event.  But  the  author  of  the 
interpolation,  overlooking  this  passage,  and  referring  to  the  story,  that  Igna- 
tius, after  leaving  Smyrna,  passed  through  Philippi  on  his  way  to  suffer 
martA'rdom  at  Rome,  makes  Polycarp  request  the  Philippians  to  communi- 
cate to  him  any  certain  information  they  might  have  concerning  Ignatius 
himself,  and  those  who  were  with  him:  ''Et  de  ipso  Ignatio,  et  de  his  qui 
ciun  eo  sunt,  quod  certius  agnoveritis  significate." 


APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.  551 

seen  them.  But  I  discern  in  the  book  no  marks  of  fanaticism  or 
imposture.  It  seems  to  me  to  belong  to  the  same  class  of  writings 
as  "The  Tablet  of  Cebes,"  '*  The  Vision  concerning  Piers  Plough- 
man," or,  to  take  a  more  familiar  example,  Bunyan's  "Pilgrim's 
Progress,"  or,  more  generally,  to  the  class  of  works  of  fiction, 
especially  those  written  in  the  first  person.  The  author,  like 
Bunyan,  describes  himself  as  having  witnessed  a  succession  of 
visions,  and  also  as  having  received  various  communications,  which 
he  was  commanded  to  publish.  His  representing  an  angel  as 
having  appeared  to  him  under  the  likeness  of  a  shepherd  gives  its 
title  to  the  work.  Its  allegories  are  not  suited  to  the  taste  of 
modern  times,  but  were  adapted  to  engage  the  attention,  and  affect 
the  minds,  of  readers  in  the  age  when  it  was  composed. 

By  some,  both  in  ancient  and  modern  times,  the  writer  has 
been  supposed  to  be  the  Hernias  mentioned  by  St.  Paul  in  his 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  chap.  xvi.  14. 

This  book,  for  a  considerable  period,  obtained  great  favor  and 
authority  with  many  in  ancient  times.  It  was  especially  acceptable 
to  the  fathers  of  the  Alexandrine  school.  It  is  once  quoted  by 
Irengeus.  Clement  of  Alexandria  often  quotes  it  as  a  book  of 
high  authority.  Origen,  in  one  place,  says  that  he  thinks  it  was 
the  work  of  the  Hernias  mentioned  by  St,  Paul,  that  it  seems  to 
him  a  very  useful  writing,  and  that  he  thinks  it  divinely  inspired. 
Elsewhere  he  quotes  it  often,  but  sometimes  with  such  qualifying 
expressions  as  "  if  that  writing  is  to  be  received."  Once  he  men- 
tions it  as  '*  despised  by  some  ;  "  and  once,  in  citing  it,  he  speaks  of 
*'  venturing  to  use  a  certain  book,  which  circulates  in  the  churches, 
but  is  not  acknowledged  as  divine  by  all." 

Tertullian  once  notices  the  book  slightingly  before  he  became  a 
Montanist;  afterwards  he  speaks  of  it  with  reprobation,  because  it 
contradicted  the  severe  doctrine,  which  he  then  held,  that  there 
was  no  repentance  for  Christians  guilty  of  unchastity.  Yet,  even 
in  expressing  his  own  ill  opinion  of  it,  he  implies  that  it  had  been 
regarded  by  some  as  having  a  claim  to  canonical  authority.  I 
would  give  up  the  point,  he  says,  "if  that  writing,  the  Shepherd, 
deserved  to  be  inserted  in  the  divine  Document "  (that  is,  among 
the  books  of  Scripture)  ;  "  if  it  had  not  been  judged  by  e very- 
council,  even  of  ijour  churches  "  (those  of  the  catholic  Christians, 
in  contradistinction  to  the  Montanists),  "  as  apocryphal  and  false." 


552  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

Euseblus  speaks  of  it  as  reported  to  be  the  work  of  the 
Hermas  mentioned  by  St.  Paul.  He  reckons  it  among  those 
writings  which  were  "  not  genuine"  Scripture  (hv  rolg  vo^oigy^  but 
says,  that  it  was  "judged  by  some  a  very  necessary  book,  espe- 
cially for  those  who  are  in  want  of  elementary  instruction,  so  that 
at  the  present  day,  as  we  know,  it  is  even  publicly  read  in 
churches,  and  I  have  observed  that  some  very  ancient  writers 
make  use  of  it."  * 

There  is  perhaps  nothing  in  the  contents  of  the  book  incon- 
sistent with  the  belief  of  its  having  been  written  in  the  first  cen- 
tury ;  but  there  is  evidence  to  the  contrary  which  can  hardly  be  set 
aside.  It  is  mentioned  in  the  fragment  of  an  account  of  canonical 
and  uncanonical  books,  or  "  Canon,"  as  it  may  be  called,  found 
by  Muratori  in  a  manuscript  of  the  Ambrosian  Library  at  Milan, 
and  published  by  him  in  1740,  in  his  *' Antiquitates  Italicae  Medii 
iEvi."  f  The  author  of  this  Canon  says  of  it,  that  "  it  was  written 
very  lately,  in  our  own  times,  by  Hermas,  while  his  brother  Pius 
presided  over  the  church  at  Rome  as  bishop ;  and  so  it  ought  to 
be  read,  but  not  publicly  in  the  church  to  the  people ;  "  adding, 
that  it  could  not  be  ranked  among  the  writings  either  of  the 
prophets  or  of  the  apostles.  J"  The  date  that  has  been  assigned  for 
the  death  of  Pius  is  the  year  142.  The  same  account  of  the 
authorship  of  the  book  is  given  in  a  Latin  poem,  "  Against  Mar- 
cion,"  of  uncertain  age  and  by  an  unknown  writer,  published  in 
editions  of  the  works  of  Tertullian.  In  this,  Hermas,  the  brother 
of  Pius,  is  called  the  Angelical  Shepherd,  who  spoke  the  words 
committed  to  him.  §  This  opinion  respecting  the  author  of  the 
Shepherd  seems  to  have  prevailed,  after  the  fifth  century,  among 
the  writers  of  the  Latin  Church.  The  book  gradually  fell  into 
neglect ;  the  original  was  lost ;  and  only  a  few  manuscripts  of  a 
Latin  translation  of  it  are  now  remaining. 

*  For  the  references  to  the  passages  above  quoted,  see  the  Veterum  Tes- 
timonia  in  the  Patres  Apostolici,  or  in  Fabricii  Cod.  Apocr.  Nov.  Test., 
pars  iii.  pp.  738-76.3. 

t  Vol.  iii.  pp.  853,  854. 

J  It  should  be  observed,  that  the  volume  of  Lardner's  "  Credibility " 
which  contains  the  article  on  Hermas  appeared  before  Muratori  published 
this  Canon. 

§  Lib.  iii.  adjincm;  Tertulliani  0pp.,  p.  635,  ed.  Priorii. 


APOSTOLICAL    FATHERS.  553 

The  writer  of  the  Canon  published  by  INIuratori  speaks  of 
himself  as  having  lived  in  the  time  of  Pius  and  his  brother,  Hernias, 
and  affirms  that  the  Shepherd  had  been  eomposed  by  the  latter 
not  lonj^  before  he  himself  wrote.  There  is  here  no  ground  for 
the  suspieion  of  falsehood ;  and  there  seems  to  be  but  little  prob- 
ability of  mistake.  The  writer  eould  hardly  have  eommitted  so 
gross  an  error  concerning  a  work  which,  according  to  his  own 
account,  was  Hunous  and  highly  esteemed  by  many,  as  to  represent 
it  to  have  been  written  by  a  well-known  individual  of  his  owa 
time,  when  in  fact  it  had  been  in  existence  from  the  first  century. 
"We  may  therefore  conclude,  that  it  was  not  written  till  towards  the 
middle  of  the  second  century:  and  we  nmst  ascribe  the  acceptance 
which  it  so  early  found,  partly  to  its  stories  and  allegorical  repre- 
sentations, —  for  even  rude  attempts  in  a  new  form  of  art  are  likely 
to  be  favorably  received ;  partly  to  an  opinion,  suggested  by  the 
general  aspect  of  the  book,  that  it  was  divinely  inspired,  —  for,  in 
the  first  ages  of  Christianity,  men''s  notions  of  inspiration  were  very 
vague  and  comprehensive;  and  partly  to  the  mistake  of  supposing 
that  it  was  written  by  one  who  lived  in  the  times  of  the  apostles. 

The  work  is  of  some  interest,  from  its  illustrating,  in  a  certain 
degree,  the  opinions,  feelings,  and  taste  of  the  early  Christians. 
But,  as  regards  the  direct  historical  evidence  for  the  genuineness 
of  the  Gospels,  it  is  of  no  importance.  No  book  is  cited  in  it  by 
name.  There  are  no  evident  quotations  from  the  Gospels,  and 
nothing  that  one  can  suppose  to  be  borrowed  from  any  apocryphal 
history  of  Christ. 

Section  V. 

The  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  so  called. 

There  is  an  Epistle  extant  which  has  been  ascribed  to  Bar  iabas, 
the  companion  of  St.  Paul.  It  is  several  times  expressly  quoted 
as  his  work  by  Clement  of  Alexandria,  who  entitles  the  author 
•'Barnabas  the  Apostle."  It  is  once  mentioned  by  Origen,  in  his 
work  against  Celsus,  under  the  title  of  the  *'  Catholic  [that  is. 
General]  Epistle  of  Barnabas,"  as  containing  a  passage  on  which 
Celsus  might  have  founded  a  charge  made  by  him,  that  the  apostles 
were  "  infamous  men,  the  vilest  tax-gatherers  and  sailors  ;  "  which 
charge  is,  as  we  shall  see,  abundantly  countenanced  by  the  pas- 


554  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

sage  referred  to.  Origen  uses  no  expression  of  respect  in  quoting 
it;  and  his  calling  it  the  "Epistle  of  Barnabas"  only  shows  that  it 
pas^sed  under  that  title,  and  does  not  prove  that  he  himself  believed 
Barnabas  to  be  its  author.  According  to  the  Latin  translations 
of  two  of  his  works  by  Rufinus,  Origen  has  quoted  this  Epistle' 
once  elsewhere,  and  perhaps  alluded  to  it  in  another  passage,  but 
still,  I  think,  without  any  particular  expression  of  respect.  The 
Epistle  is  afterwards  mentioned  by  Eusebius,  who  classes  it 
among  books  not  canonical,  or  not  genuine  Scripture  (h  toI^  vodoic). 
After  him,  Jerome  ascribes  it  to  Barnabas,  reckoning  it  among  the 
Apocryphal  Scriptures;  that  is,  as  is  here  meant  by  him,  among 
writings  entitled  to  respect,  though  not  canonical.  The  book 
appears  to  be  mentioned  by  no  other  writer  during  the  first  four 
centuries  ;  *  but  in  the  Apostolical  Constitutions  there  is  a  passage 
evidently  taken  from  it.f  Though  so  early  recommended  to  notice 
by  the  quotations  of  Clement  of  Alexandria  as  the  work  of  Bar- 
nabas the  apostle,  it  seems  never  to  have  obtained  much  favor 
among  the  great  body  of  Christians.  Clement  himself,  in  one 
place,  rejects  a  fiction  found  in  the  work,  J  and,  in  another,  appears 
unsatisfied  with  one  of  its  expositions.  §  He  has  adduced  it, 
therefore,  not  as  a  work  of  conclusive  authority,  nor  has  he 
quoted  it  for  historical  facts,  but  only  for  expressions  of  senti- 
ment and  opinion.  Among  the  great  multitude  of  volumes  which 
that  very  learned  father  has  cited  in  his  writings,  there  must  have 
been  many  in  regard  to  the  authorship  of  which  he  trusted  to  their 
titles,  or  to  very  slight  information  ;  nor  is  it  doubted,  that,  in 
doing  so,  he  has  been  led  into  many  mistakes.  In  assigning  the 
present  work  to  Barnabas,  he  may  have  been  deceived  by  a  title 
prefixed  to  some  copy  of  it  through  the  misjudgment  of  a  former 
proprietor,  or  to  several  copies,  fraudulently,  to  promote  their 
sale ;  or  it  may  have  been  written  by  some  individual  of  the  name 
of  Barnabas,  and  Clement  may  have  hastily  concluded  that  the 
author  thus  named  was  the  companion  of  St.  Paul.  In  ancient 
times,  the  genuineness  of  books  as  a  matter  of  literal^  interest  was 


*  See  the  Veterum  Testimonia,  in  the  Patres  Apostolici. 

t  See  DalljEUS,  De  Pseudepigraphis  Apostolicis,  lib.  ii.  c  4,  pp.  265,  266. 

t  Paedagog.,  ii.  10,  p.  188:  comp.  Epist.  Barnab.,  c.  10. 

§  Stromat.,  ii.  15,  p.  889. 


APOSTOLICAL  FATHERS.  655 

much  less  carefully  investigated  than  at  the  present  day;  and 
Clement  was  not  distinguished  from  other  ancient  writers  by  par- 
ticular attention  to  the  subject.  His  authority,  probably,  was  the 
principal  means  of  procuring  for  the  so-called  "Epistle  of  Bar- 
nabas" the  notice  it  afterwards  obtained. 

But  the  author  of  this  work  does  not  write  in  the  name  of 
Barnabas,  nor  in  any  way  identify  himself  with  him  ;  and  there  are 
decisive  reasons  for  believing  Barnabas  not  to  have  been  its 
author.*  Its  most  distinguishing  characteristic  is  its  being  thor- 
oughly imbued  with  the  allegorizing  spirit  of  the  Alexandrine 
school,  which  may  in  some  degree  have  recommended  it  to  Clem- 
ent. Though  of  a  very  far  inferior  character,  it  has  in  this 
respect,  and  in  its  general  design,  some  resemblance  to  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews.  The  style  of  reasoning  and  interpretation  is  so 
foreign  from  all  our  present  intellectual  habits,  that  it  may  have 
been  spoken  of  too  contemptuously ;  but  it  is  unquestionably  the 
work  of  a  writer  deficient  in  good  sense.  The  allegorical  inter- 
pretations of  the  Old  Testament  are  very  forced  and  mean  ;  yet 
after  one  of  the  poorest,  in  which  he  teaches  that  the  number  of 
the  persons  circumcised  by  Abraham,  whirh  he  falsely  supposes  to 
have  been  three  hundred  and  eighteen,  was  typical  of  the  cross 
and  of  the  first  two  Greek  letters  of  the  name  of  Jesus,  he  sub- 
joins: "He  who  has  implanted  in  us  the  gift  of  teaching  knows 
that  no  one  has  learnt  from  me  a  more  genuine  doctrine.  But  I 
know  that  ye  are  worthy  of  it."  f  We  can  hardly  suppose  this  to 
have  been  written  by  Barnabas,  one  high  in  honor  among  the  first 
preachers  of  Christianity,  the  associate  of  St.  Paul  in  his  labors. 
Christianity  was  not  established  in  the  Gentile  world  by  the 
preaching  of  such  "  genuine  doctrines."  The  allegories  in  the 
Epistle,  founded  upon  the  Mosaic  laws  respecting  clean  and 
unclean  food,  are  mixed  up  with  strange  fables  respecting  animals. 
The  whole  tone  of  it  is  low  and  trivial,  expressing  no  warmth 
of  feeling,  and  not  adapted  to  excite  any.  And  to  mention  one 
other  particular  passage,  that  referred  to  by  Origen  in  his  work 

*  I  should  have  considered  the  point  so  well  settled,  that  Barnabas  was 
not  its  author,  as  to  render  it  unnecessary  to  enter  into  any  argument  on  the 
subject,  had  I  not  observed  that  several  of  the  modern  German  scholars  ara 
disposed  to  attribute  i*  to  him. 

t  Cap.  9 


556  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

against  Celsus,  the  writer,  laboring  after  emphatic  language, 
says  that  Jesus  chose  for  his  apostles  men  "who  were  sinners 
beyond  all  sin  ; "  a  declaration  too  foolishly  extravagant  for  us 
to  believe  that  it  proceeded  from  a  contemporary  and  friend  of  the 
apostles. 

But  it  may  be  said,  that  we  know  too  little  of  Barnabas  person- 
ally to  determine,  from  the  inferior  character  of  the  Epistle,  that 
it  might  not  have  been  written  by  him.  I  answer,  that  we  know 
much  concerning  him.  From  the  few  notices  of  him  that  St.  Luke 
has  given,  we  learn  that  he  was  greatly  trusted  by  the  apostles, 
and  had  great  influence  with  them;  that  he  was  one  of  the  earliest 
of  those  preachers  by  whom  Christianity  was  spread  through  the 
world;  that,  with  the  exception  of  St.  Paul,  he  apparently  did 
more  than  any  other  in  the  accomplishment  of  this  work ;  that,  in 
the  commencement  of  St.  Paul's  ministry,  he  was,  as  it  were,  his 
patron ;  that  he  was  open,  manly,  and  strong-minded,  taking  St. 
Paul  and  bringing  him  to  the  apostles,  when  the  other  disciples 
were  all  afraid  of  him,  and  with  him  maintaining  the  claims  of  the 
Gentiles  against  the  prejudices  of  his  countrymen ;  and  that  he 
was  full  of  zeal  and  disinterestedness  In  the  cause  in  which  he  was 
engaged,  giving  up  his  property  to  supply  those  who  were  in  need, 
and  devoting  all  his  powers  to  Its  promotion.  -  Considering  what 
he  was  and  what  he  effected,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  he  com- 
prehended and  felt  the  essential  truths  of  our  religion,  and 
was  well  able  to  impress  them  on  the  hearts  and  minds  of  others. 
When,  with  such  a  conception  of  him  distinctly  before  us,  we 
come  to  the  reading  of  his  pretended  Epistle,  it  requires  but  little 
knowledge  of  human  nature  to  enable  us  to  determine  that  it  is 
not  his  work.  It  may  seem  only  to  imply  the  ability  to  distinguish 
between  the  miserable  composition  of  some  Alexandrine  sopln'st, 
and  the  words  of  one  full  of  the  spirit  and  power  of  Christianity. 
No  incongruity  would  be  more  gross  than  to  ascribe  such  an 
Epistle  to  St.  Paul ;  and  it  seems  scarcely  less  incongruous  to 
ftscribe  it  to  Barnabas. 

To  proceed  to  another  argument :  Barnabas  was  a  Jew  by 
birth ;  but  the  author  of  the  Epistle  uniformly  blends  himself  with 
the  Gentile  Christians  as  one  of  their  number.  It  may  be  possible 
to  evade  the  force  of  particular  passages  to  this  effect,  one  after 
another ;  but  the  whole  impression  from  the  manner  in  which  he 


APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.  557 

speaks  is,  that  he  was  a  Gentile  by  birth,  and,  I  think,  a  Gentile 
convert.  In  addition  to  this,  he  does  not  write  in  the  Hebraistic 
style  of  the  New  Testament.  He  discovers  no  Jewish  sentiments 
or  affections,  no  interest  in  or  sympathy  with  the  Jewish  nation. 
He  writes  of  them  with  the  harsh  feelings  of  a  Gentile.  No  Jew 
could  or  ought  so  to  have  alienated  himself  from  his  countrymen. 
Between  the  state  of  mind  expressed  by  the  writer,  and  the  strong 
emotion  with  which  St.  Paul  speaks  of  his  "  great  grief  and  con- 
tinual pain  of  heart  for  his  brethren,  his  natural  kinsmen,"  the 
contrast  is  much  too  striking  to  allow  of  our  attributing  the  Epistle 
to  Barnabas,  especially  when  we  remember  that  this  work  is 
imagined  to  have  been  written  by  him  immediately  after  those 
overwhelming  calamities  which  the  Jews  brought  upon  themselves 
through  their  unbelief. 

As  appears  from  the  work  itself  (c.  16),  it  was  written  after 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  (a.d.  70).  It  cannot  be  proved, 
that,  in  the  common  course  of  nature,  Barnabas  might  not  have 
survived  that  event ;  but  there  is  no  doubt,  that,  if  he  did  so,  he 
must  have  been  far  advanced  in  life.  That  one  who  had  com- 
posed nothing  before  should  then  set  about  the  composition  of  a 
writing  at  all  resembling  that  ascribed  to  Barnabas  is  very  im- 
probable ;  and  still  more  improbable  is  it,  that  in  a  work  addressed 
by  Barnabas,  under  such  circumstances,  to  his  fellow-Christians, 
there  should  be  no  recurrence  to  his  past  history,  no  expression 
of  those  deeply  affecting  recollections  that  must  have  pressed  upon 
his  mind,  no  reference  to  his  old  age,  nor  any  trace  of  emotion  in 
contemplating  the  ruin  which  God  had  inflicted  upon  his  nation, 
the  hard  but  successful  struggles  of  the  true  faith,  and  his  own 
solitary  state,  as  one  of  the  few  survivors  of  that  noble  company 
of  apostles  and  martyrs,  who  had  been  bound  together  by  such 
strong  sympathies  in  suffering  and  joy.  Nothing  of  all  this 
appears  in  the  Epistle.  It  might  have  been  written  as  a  task  by  a 
dull  pupil  in  a  rhetorician's  school. 

Barnabas,  as  I  have  said,  may  have  survived  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem,  though  it  is  for  various  reasons  unlikely  that  he  did 
so :  but,  were  it  the  fact,  it  would  not  prove  that  he  might  have 
been  the  author  of  the  Epistle  ;  for  the  Epistle  was  not  written,  as 
has  been  affirmed,  shortly  after  that  event.  This  appears  from 
the  passage  in  which  the  event  is  referred  to ;  from  which  it  also 


558  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

appears,  that  the  •writer  was  neither  Barnabas  nor  any  other  Jew. 
The  Jewish  temple  having  been  destroyed,  the  author  represents 
the  Gentiles  as  building  up  in  its  stead  a  spiritual  temple  to  God. 
Its  destruction,  he  says,  was  predicted  in  the  Old  Testament,  and 
"it  has  taken  place.  For,  they  [the  Jews]  going  to  war,  it  was 
destroyed  by  their  enemies ;  and  now  will  the  very  ministers  of 
their  enemies  rebuild  it."  The  Jews  going  to  loar,  it  ivas  destroyed 
by  their  enemies, — the  writer  would  not  thus  have  spoken  of  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  had  it  been  a  recent  event,  fresh  in  the 
minds  of  men ;  nor  would  he,  if  a  Jew,  have  classed  himself,  as  he 
immediately  does,  with  the  very  ministers  of  the  enemies  of  his 
nation,  converted  Gentiles,  who  were  to  form  the  new  temple,  — 
"we,"  he  says,  "whose  hearts,  before  we  believed  in  God,  were 
full  of  idolatry,  a  habitation  of  demons,  but  in  whom  God  now 
dwells." 

We  conclude,  then,  that  the  Epistle  was  not  written  by  Bar- 
nabas ;  and,  this  being  the  case,  we  have  no  ground  for  assigning 
to  it  an  earlier  date  than  is  required  by  the  circumstance  of  its 
being  quoted  by  Clement  of  Alexandria ;  that  is,  we  may  suppose 
it  to  have  been  written  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century. 
We  may  derive  an  argument  for  its  not  being  in  existence  before 
this  period,  from  the  fact,  that  it  is  not  noticed  by  Irenaeus  or 
Tertullian,  the  latter  of  whom  speaks  of  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews as  written  by  Barnabas,  —  calling  it  the  "Epistle  of  Bar- 
nabas,"—  without  intimating  a  knowledge  of  any  other  ascribed 
to  him.*  A  considerable  part  of  the  Epistle  is  controversial, 
directed  against  the  unbelieving  Jews,  and  having,  therefore,  the 
same  character  as  Justin  Martyr's  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  which 
was  written  about  the  period  just  mentioned.  But,  from  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  (a.d.  70)  till  the  reign  of  Antoninus  Pius 
(a.d.  138-161),  the  state  of  the  Jews,  including  the  Jewish  Chris- 
tians, was  such,  that  there  is  little  likelihood  that  religious  contro- 
versies existed  between  them  and  the  Gentile  Christians,  or  that 
the  notice  of  the  latter  was  at  all  directed  to  their  pretensions. 
The  wrath  of  the  Roman  empire  had  fallen  upon  and  blasted  the 
nation,  and  continued  to  pursue  it,  as  if  to  exterminate  the  race. 
They  became  objects  of  general  aversion  and  hatred.   As  an  odious 

*  De  Pudicitia,  c  20. 


APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.  559 

and  degraded  class,  they  were  everywhere  exposed  to  insult  and 
cruelty.  The  capitation-tax,  the  didrachm,  which  they  had  been 
accustomed  to  pay  for  the  service  of  the  temple,  was  required  by 
Titus,  in  bitter  mockery,  for  the  temple  of  Jupiter  Capitolinus. 
Under  Domitian,  the  impositions  upon  them  were  made  more 
severe  by  the  brutality  with  which  they  were  enforced,  —  Prceier 
cceteros  Judaicus  Jiscus  acerbissime  actus  est,  says  Suetonius; 
and  it  became  a  common  source  of  revenue  to  charge  them 
with  crimes  for  the  sake  of  seizing  upon  their  property.*  They 
were  forbidden  by  the  edicts  of  the  Roman  emperors  to  circumcise 
their  children.  Tiiey  existed  tliroughout  the  empire  only  as 
suppressed  rebels,  often  breaking  out  mto  open  war,  and  perpe- 
trating and  suffering  terrible  massacres;  till  at  last  the  vengeance 
of  Adrian  was  directed  upon  Judasa,  and  renewed,  as  far  as  there 
were  objects  for  it,  the  desolation  of  Titus.  Under  such  circum- 
stances, we  can  hardly  suppose  the  Jews  to  have  been  so  interested, 
in  the  religious  controversy  with  the  Gentile  Christians,  as  to  give 
occasion  for  such  works  as  the  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  or  tlie 
Epistle  of  Barnabas.  But  under  the  first  Antoninus,  the  successor 
of  Adrian,  the  prohibition  to  circumcise  their  children  was  re- 
voked, the  wiser  policy  of  conciliation  was  adopted  toward  them, 
they  enjoyed  a  respite  from  their  sufferings;  and,  as  during  his 
reign  the  Dialogue  with  Trypho  was  written,  so  also,  we  may 
suppose,  was  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas. 

To  those  who  believe  that  the  doctrine  of  the  pre-existence 
of  Christ  did  not  begm  to  prevail  among  the  Orthodox  Christians 
till  toward  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  its  introduction  into 
this  Epistle  may  afford  another  argument  for  the  date  assigned 
to  it. 

But,  whatever  weight  there  may  be  in  these  considerations,  it 
is  to  be  remembered,  that,  if  the  Epistles  be  not  the  work  of 
Barnabas,  we  have  no  ground  whatever  for  supposing  it  written 
earlier  than  the  period  mentioned;  and  there  is  no  ground,  there- 
fore, for  classing  it  with  writings  of  apostolical  fathers.  Its 
internal  character  is  an  objection,  not  merely  to  its  having  been 


*  To  such  an  extent  was  this  practice  carried,  that,  when  it  was  abol- 
ished by  Nerva,  a  coin  was  struck,  bearing  the  inscription,  "  Fisci  Judaici 
Calumnia  sublata  S.C" 


560  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

written  by  Barnabas,  but  by  any  one  who  bad  been  conversant 
with  apostles. 

The  Epistle  is  now  extant,  partly  in  the  Greek  original,  and 
partly  in  an  old  Latin  translation ;  the  beginning  of  the  former 
and  the  end  of  the  latter  being  lost.  The  texts  of  both,  in  the 
few  manuscripts  in  which  they  are  extant,  are  very  corrupt ;  and, 
in  the  forms  in  which  they  have  been  printed,  both  lie  under  the 
suspicion  of  having  been  interpolated  and  altered  by  transcribers. 

The  Epistle  contains  three  passages  corresponding  to  passages 
in  the  Gospels.*  There  is  one  which  Eichhorn  thinks  was  taken 
from  an  apocryphal  history  of  Christ. f  It  is  as  follows:  "So 
they,  he  says,  who  would  see  me,  and  attain  my  kingdom,  must 
receive  me  through  affliction  and  suffering."  J  But  there  seems 
no  difficulty  in  regarding  this  as  intended  to  express  Jthe  sense  of 
various  passages  in  the  Gospels.  There  is  another  professed  quo- 
tation, that  would  seem  to  have  been  more  to  Eichhorn's  purpose, 
which,  however,  may  admit  of  a  similar  explanation.  "As  the 
Son  of  God  says.  Let  us  resist  all  iniquity,  and  hate  it."  §  But, 
as  regards  both  these  passages,  it  is  further  to  be  observed,  that 
the  writer  of  the  Epistle  is  extremely  inaccurate  in  his  professed 
quotations,  so  as  often  to  cite  the  Old  Testament  for  words  and 
facts  not  to  be  found  in  it.  ||  But,  as  these  citations  do  not  prove 
that  he  had  any  other  copy  of  the  Old  Testament  than  that  in 
common  use,  so  neither  do  the  two  passages  in  question  provt 
that  he  had  any  other  copy  of  the  New  Testament.  We  cannot 
infer  from  them  that  he  quoted  any  apocryphal  writing;  and, 
could  this  be  shown,  it  would  be  a  fact  of  no  moment. 


Section  VL 

Epistles  ascribed  to  Ignatius. 

We  come  now  to  seven  Epistles  ascribed  to  Ignatius,  said  to 
be  a  bishop  of  Antioch,  who  suffered  martyrdom  soon  after  the 


*  See  Lardner's  article  on  Barnabas;  Credibility,  part  ii.  chap.  i. 
t  Einleit.  in  d.  N.T.,  i.  117,  118.  J  Cap.  7.  §  Cap.  4. 

II   See  the  examples  adduced  by  Jones  in  his  New  and  Full  Method  of 
•ettling  the  Canonical  Authority  of  the  N.T.,  vol.  ii.  chap.  xli. 


APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.  561 

close  of  the  first  century.  These  Epistles  exist  in  two  forms,  in 
one  of  which  they  are  shorter  than  in  tlie  other.  The  shorter 
Epistles  have  either  been  abridged  from  the  longer,  with  some 
ciianges  of  expression,  or  the  longer  have  been  interpolated,  and 
altered  in  other  respects  from  the  shorter.  It  is  the  genuineness 
of  the  shorter  Epistles  that  is  generally  contended  for  by  those 
who  suppose  one  or  the  other  set  to  have  been  written  by  Igna- 
tius. The  story  connected  with  them  is,  that  he  was  sent  by  the 
personal  order  of  the  Emperor  Trajan  from  Antioch,  by  a  land 
journey,  to  Rome,  there  to  be  exposed  to  wild  beasts ;  and  that 
on  his  way  he  wrote  six  of  these  Epistles  to  different  churches, 
and  one  to  Poly  carp. 

But  the  seven  shorter  Epistles,  the  genuineness  of  which  is 
contended  for,  come  to  us  in  bad  company ;  not  only  that  of  their 
seven  larger  brethren,  but  that  of  eight  other  Epistles  ascribed 
to  Ignatius,  which  the  learned  have  almost  unanimously  pro- 
nounced to  be  spurious.  In  ancient  times,  supposititious  works, 
and  those  of  little  credit,  were  not  uncommonly  refashioned,  or 
gave  occasion  to  others  of  a  similar  character;  while  the  un- 
doubted genuineness  of  a  work  prevented  such  changes  and 
imitations.  The  name  of  Ignatius,  it  is  apparent,  was  a  favorite 
among  the  fabricators  of  spurious  writings,  probably  because 
hardly  any  thing  was  known  of  him  with  certainty. 

There  is,  as  it  seems  to  me,  no  reasonable  doubt,  that  the  seven 
shorter  Epistles  ascribed  to  Ignatius  are,  equally  with  all  the  rest, 
fabrications  of  a  date  long  subsequent  to  his  time.  ^  Some,  who 
have  felt  the  strong  objections  to  which  their  genuineness  is  ex- 
posed, have  adopted  the  notion  of  their  being  interpolated,  or 
have  suggested  that  this  might  be  the  case.  But  I  believe,  that, 
if  there  be  any  thing  in  them  which  Ignatius  said  or  wrote,  it  is 
this  which  may  be  considered  as  interpolated,  having  been  intro- 
duced by  the  author  of  the  Epistles  to  give  credit  to  his  forgery. 
The  design  of  this  forgery  appears  to  have  been  to  strengthen 
the  domination  of  priests,  and  especially  of  bishops  ;  to  confirm  the 
doctrine  of  the  deity  of  Christ,  according  to  the  writer's  concep- 
tions of  it;  and  to  bear  down  the  Gnostics  and  other  heretics, 
by  the  pretended  authority  of  an  ancient  martyr. 

The  genuineness  of  these  Epistles  has  been  so  ably  discus^ud, 
and  they  have,  in  my  opinion,  been  so  satisfactorily  proved  to 


562  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

be  spurious,  that  1  shall  make  only  a  few  general  remarks  upon 
the  subject.* 

The  state  of  the  external  testimony  is  such  as  to  create  a 
strong  presumption  of  their  being  fabricated.  The  passage  near 
the  conclusion  of  the  Epistle  of  Polycarp  in  its  Latin  translation; 
in  which  epistles  of  Ignatius  are  mentioned,  is  of  such  a  character 
as  at  once  to  raise  a  suspicion  of  its  having  been  interpolated 
to  countenance  the  fraud,  f  No  epistles  of  Ignatius  are  men- 
tioned by  Irengeus,  Clement,  or  Tertullian ;  and  the  absence  of 
such  mention,  under  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  is  all  but 
decisive  proof,  that  the  seven  Epistles  did  not  exist  in  their  day. 
Especially  the  fact,  that  Irenseus  does  insist  at  length  upon  the 
evidence  against  the  doctrines  of  the  Gnostics  to  be  derived,  from 
the  Epistles  of  Clement  and  Polycarp,  without  mentioning  those 
of  Ignatius,  which  the  occasion  must  have  forced  upon  his  notice, 
and  Avhich  might  have  seemed  written  expressly  for  his  purpose, 
shows,  either  that  these  Epistles  were  not  then  extant,  or  that  he 
did  not  recognize  them  as  genuine  ;  and  of  these  inferences  there 
is  abundant  reason  to  adopt  the  first.  J     Origen  is  adduced  as 

*  The  subject  is  to  be  studied  in  the  work  of  Daill^,  "  De  Scriptis  quae 
sub  Dionysii  Areopagitse  et  Ignatii  Antiocheni  Nominibus  circumferuntur;" 
in  which,  however,  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  he  blends  together  objections 
both  to  the  shorter  and  longer  Epistles,  it  not  being  settled  in  his  time  which 
set  was  to  be  defended ;  —  in  Bishop  Pearson's  reply  to  Dailld,  entitled  "  Vin- 
dicise  Ignatianae;  "  —  and  in  Larroque's  answer  to  Pearson  f  which  I  have  not 
been  able  to  procure),  "  Observ-ationes  in  Ignatianas  Pearsonii  Vindicias, 
necnon  in  Beverigii  Annotationes."  Most  readers,  however,  will  find  enough 
to  satisfy  them  in  Chauncy's  "  Complete  View  of  Episcopacy,  as  exhibited 
from  the  Fathers  of  the  Christian  Church  until  the  Close  of  the  Second 
Century,"  —  the  work  of  an  able  and  learned  theologian  of  this  country, 
which,  though  the  controversy  that  produced  it  is  obsolete,  still  retains 
value,  from  the  information  it  jiftbrds  concerning  Christian  antiquitv.  It 
is  striking,  and,  to  a  scholar,  almost  affecting,  that  such  a  work  should 
have  been  produced  among  us  at  a  time  (but  little  more  than  fifty  years 
since)  when,  as  the  author  mentions,  there  was  a  want  of  types  and  skill  to 
print  the  Greek  citations  in  Greek  letters. 

t  See  before,  p.  550. 

X  There  is  a  passage  in  Iren£eus  (lib.  v.  c  28,  §  4),  which  Eusebius 
(H.E.,  iii.  36)  adduces  in  proof  of  his  having  quoted  these  Epistles,  and 
which  has  been  insisted  upon  by  their  defenders  in  modern  times.  It  is  as 
follows:  "As  one  among  us  said,  when  condemned  to  the  wild  beasts  on 


APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.  563 

twice  quoting  them :  but  one  of  the  quotations  appealed  to  is  in 
a  work  *  of  which  we  have  only  a  translation  by  llufinus,  who  so 
altered  and  interpolated  the  writings  of  Origcn  which  he  rendeied, 
that  his  translations,  where  a  reasonable  doubt  may  arise  of  the 
genuineness  of  a  particular  passage,  are  not  considered  as  of 
authority  to  prove  what  Origen  wrote ;  and  the  other  is  found 
in  a  work  of  which  the  genuineness  is  doubtful,  a  homily,  f 
which  those  who  contend  for  its  genuineness  suppose  to  have 
been  written  down  by  some  hearer  clandestinely,  without  Origen's 
consent ;  J  and  in  the  copies  of  which,  thus  particularly  exposed 
to  interpolation  from  not  having  any  claim  to  be  regarded  as  the 
precise  words  of  the  author,  it  may  have  been  subsequently  in- 
troduced. 

But  there  is,  after  all,  nothing  improbable  in  the  supposition, 
that  some  spurious  epistle  or  epistles  ascribed  to  Ignatius  existed 
in  the  time  of  Origen.  This  may,  indeed,  seem  more  likely  than 
that  the  seven  contested  Epistles  should  have  been  produced  in 
a  body  at  a  later  period,  without  any  thing  previously  existing 
to  suggest  or  to  countenance  their  fabrication.  They,  as  Ave  have 
seen,  gave  occasion  to  fifteen  spurious  epistles,  which  followed 
them ;  and  we  may  reasonably  conjecture,  that  they  would  not, 
some  centuries  after  the  death  of  Ignatius,  have  been  put  forward 
as  written  by  him,  if  no  one  had  before  heard  of  an  epistle  as- 
cribed to  Ignatius. 

The  first  writer  by  whom   the   seven   Epistles   are    expressly 

account  of  his  testimony  for  God,  I  am  the  grain  of  Christ  [or  God],  and  am 
ground  by  the  teeth  of  wild  beasts,  that  I  may  be  found  pure  bread  of  God." 
These  words  are  found  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  ascribed  to  Ignatius 
(§  4).  By  Jerome  they  are  said  to  have  been  spoken  at  the  time  of  his 
martyrdom.  Supposing  that  Irenoeus  referred  to  Ignatius,  which  has  been 
assumed  on  the  one  hand,  and  admitted  on  the  other,  without,  I  think,  any 
sufficient  proof,  there  is  no  good  reason  for  believing  that  he  quoted  the 
words  of  the  Epistle.  The  turn  of  expression,  on  the  contrary,  would  lead 
us  to  suppose  that  he  referred  to  spoken  words;  and  the  forger  of  these 
Epistles,  for  the  purpose  of  giving  them  credit,  would  naturally  have  recourse 
to  the  artifice  of  introducing  into  them  words  that  had  been  ascribed  to 
Ignatius,  or  Avhich  might  be  fancied  to  be  his. 

*  Prolog,  in  Cantic.  Canticorum ;  0pp.  iii.  30. 

t  Homil.  in  Lucam  vi. ;  0pp.  iii.  938. 

t  See  Delarue's  Preface  to  the  third  volume  of  Origen's  Works,  pp.  iv.,  ▼• 


564  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

mentioned  is  Eusebius ;  *  and  by  him  in  such  a  Avay  as,  I  tliink, 
to  leave  it  doubtful  whether  he  believed  their  genuineness.  He 
begins  his  account  of  the  martyrdom  of  Ignatius  with  the  words, 
"  Jif  is  reported,''''  '\  and  speaks  of  him  as  ''still  very  famous  with 
many ; "  while,  except  the  honorable  mention  of  him  as  an  ex- 
ample of  patience  in  the  genuine  portion  of  the  Epistle  of  Poly- 
carp,  his  7ia7ne  does  not  occur  in  the  extant  writings  of  any 
preceding  father,  unless  the  passages  ascribed  to  Origen  are 
genuine.  Eusebius  was  not  of  a  character  to  expose  himself 
to  odium  by  directly  expressing  his  disbelief  of  a  fabrication 
intended  to  strengthen  the  power  of  the  priesthood. 

The  story  connected  with  the  pretended  composition  of  these 
Epistles  IS  very  improbable ;  but  on  this  it  is  unnecessary  to 
dwell.  Their  internal  character  affords,  in  my  opinion,  the  clearest 
evidence  of  forgery.  A  series  of  anachronisms  runs  through  them. 
They  suppose  a  priesthood  with  distinctions  and  powers  which 
did  not  exist  till  long  after  the  time  of  Ignatius.  The  implicit 
submission  of  the  laity  to  the  clergy  in  all  spiritual  matters  is 
a  constant  topic,  and  is  inculcated  in  language  foolish  and  ex- 
travagant even  to  profaneness.  A  single  example  may  suffice: 
*'  Do  ye  all  follow  your  bishop,  as  Jesus  Christ  did  the  Father, 
and  the  presbytery,  as  the  apostles ;  and  reverence  the  deacons 
as  the  command  of  God."  J  To  give  such  an  exhortation  to 
Christians  at  the  present  day  would  not  be  more  absurd  than  it 
would  have  been  to  address  it  to  those  of  the  primitive  age, 
when  Ignatius  is  supposed  to  have  lived.  There  is  a  similar 
anachronism  in  the  language  concerning  the  theological  doctrine 
of  the  deity  of  Christ.  And  the  repeated  references  to  the 
opinions  of  the  Docetfle  imply,  that  those  opinions  had  acquired 
a  notoriety  and  importance  about  the  end  of  the  first  century, 
which  is  inconsistent  with  the  statements  of  the  early  fathers  by 
whom  they  were  controverted,  who  refer  their  rise  to  the  times 
of  Adrian  and  Antoninus  Pius. 

I  doubt  whether  any  book,  in  its  general  tone  of  sentiment 
and  language,  ever  betrayed  itself  as  a  forgery  more  clearly 
than  do  these  pretended  Epistles  of  Ignatius.     The  style,  which 

*  Hist.  Eccles.,  lib.  iii.  c.  36.  f  Aoyog  d*  ex^i. 

X  Epist.  ad  Smyrnseos,  §  8. 


APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.  565 

is  barbarous  and  obscure,  is,  at  the  same  time,  ridiculously  in- 
flated and  artificial.*  There  is  no  natural  expression  of  feeling. 
The  sentiments  ascribed  to  Ignatius  present  a  rude  caricatui-e 
of  a  very  weak,  half-crazy,  vain-glorious  bigot.  Take  the  concep- 
tion on  which  the  Epistles  are  founded,  —  that  of  an  aged  Chris- 
tian bishop,  who  had  been  a  companion  of  apostles,  torn  from 
his  people  by  an  order  of  the  emperor  in  person,  sent  a  long 
journey  under  a  guard  of  brutal  soldiers,  to  suffer,  at  its  termina- 
tion, a  barbarous  death,  continually  receiving,  on  his  way,  all  the 
consolations  and  supports  which  the  sympathy  of  his  fellow- 
Christians  could  afford  him,  and  addressing  to  them,  under  such 
circumstances,  his  last  exhortations, — take  this  conception,  and 
one  can  hardly  imagine  that  the  outline  could  be  filled  up,  as  it  is 
by  the  forger  of  these  Epistles,  so  that  not  a  feeling  of  interest 
or  respect  should  be  excited  for  the  supposed  sufferer.  No  writer 
of  a  fustian  tragedy  ever  more  grossly  misrepresented  human 
nature,  or  put  more  extravagant  rant  into  the  mouth  of  his 
principal  personage. f 

I  conceive  these  Epistles  In  their  shorter  form  to  have  been 
fabricated  about  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century,  the  date 

*  The  following  account  of  the  star  said  to  have  appeared  to  the  Magi 
may  serve  as  an  illustration  of  the  character  of  the  forger  of  these  Epistles, 
and  of  his  style  of  writing,  though  of  this  it  is  not  the  most  remarkable 
specimen  that  might  be  given:  — 

"A  star  shone  forth  in  the  heavens,  brighter  than  all  the  stars,  and  its 
light  was  unspeakable;  and  its  novelty  produced  perturbation.  And  the 
other  stars,  together  with  the  sun  and  moon,  became  a  choir  to  that  star; 
and  that  surpassed  them  all  in  its  light,  and  there  was  trouble  among  men 
whence  came  this  strange  novelty.  Hence  all  magic  was  dissolved,  and 
every  bond  of  wickedness  done  away,  ignorance  was  overthroAvn,  the  old 
kingdom  was  destroyed,  God  being  manifested  in  a  human  form  for  the 
newness  of  eternal  life,  and  that  which  was  perfected  by  God  received 
dominion.  Hence  all  things  were  in  commotion,  because  the  destruction  of 
death  was  preparing."  —  Ejnst.  ad  Ej^hesios,  §  19. 

'■'■  Mii'um  hcec  potuisse  videri  temere  scriptn,  absur^da^  indicia, ^^  —  "It  is 
wonderful  that  this  account  can  have  appeared  unfounded,  absurd,  unheard 
of."  So  says  Cotelier,  in  his  note  on  the  passage,  referring  to  expressions  of 
Dailld.  Bishop  Pearson  (Vindic.  Ignat.,  pars  ii.  c.  10)  defends  it  as  credible; 
saying,  that  there  were  '*  two  phases  of  the  star,  one  in  the  East,  and  the 
other  at  Jerusalem,"  and  that  the  account  refers  to  the  former. 

t  See  particularly  the  whole  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 


56Q  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

assigned  to  them  by  Daille ;  but  it  is  doubtful,  whether,  in  this 
form,  their  text  remains  the  same  as  it  originally  appeared.  They 
are  of  no  value  as  regards  the  direct  historical  evidence  for  the 
genuineness  of  the  Gospels.  But  Elchhorn,  though  he  admits  that 
they  were  not  the  work  of  Ignatius,  says  that  *'  they  are  an 
ancient  though  much-interpolated  book,"*  and  insists  on  one 
passage,  as  proving  that  the  apostolical  fathers  quoted  apocry- 
phal gospels,  f 

Section  VIL 

Concluding  Remarks  respecting  the  Evidence  for  or  against  the 
Genuineness  of  the  Gospels  to  he  derived  from  the  Writings 
before  meniioned. 

From  the  writings  ascribed  to  apostolical  fathers,  if  our  pre- 
ceding conclusions  be  correct,  we  have  to  except  the  Second 
Epistle  of  Clement,  so  called,  of  the  existence  of  which  we  have 
no  proof  before  the  fourth  century ;  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas, 
which  was  written  not  long  before  the  middle  of  the  second  cen- 
tury ;  what  is  named  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  which  was  not  the 
work  of  Barnabas  the  apostle,  and  the  composition  of  which  may 
likewise  be  referred  to  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century ; 
and  the  spurious  Epistles  of  Ignatius,  the  fabrication  of  a  much 
later  age. 

We  have,  then,  remaining  only  the  Epistle  of  Clement  of  Rome, 
and  that  of  Polycarp,  of  which  I  shall  speak  hereafter. 

The  writings  first  mentioned  are  unimportant  as  affording  di- 
rect historical  evidence  for  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels.  Sup- 
posing the  Gospels  to  have  been  in  common  use  among  Christians 
at  the  time  of  their  composition,  there  can  indeed  be  little  doubt 
that  they  contain  quotations  from  and  references  to  them.  But 
the  Gospels  are  not  spoken  of  nor  described :  there  is  nothing 
in  the  writings  themselves  clearly  to  designate  the  source  or 
sources  of  those  quotations  and  references ;  nor  are  the  words 
alleged  introduced  under  such  circumstances,  and  so  strikingly 
correspondent  with  the  words  of  the  evangelists,  as  to  satisfy  us, 

•  Einleit.  in  d.  N.T.,  i.  131.  f  Ibid.,  p.  132. 


APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.  567 

from  these  considerations  alone,  that  they  must  have  been  taken 
from  the  Gospels. 

But  it  has  been  maintained,  that  these  Avritin^^s  not  only  afford 
no  proof  of  this  fact,  but  that  they,  together  with  the  Epistles  of 
Clement  and  Polycarp,  show  that  gospels  different  from  those  we 
now  have  were  in  common  use  among  the  companions  and  imme- 
diate successors  of  the  apostles.  Eichhorn  contends,  that  "  the 
apostolical  fathers,  from  Barnabas,  and  Clement  of  Rome,  down 
to  Polycarp,  used  in  their  writings,  genuine  and  spurious  [that  is, 
in  those  which  they  did  and  in  those  which  they  did  not  write], 
texts  of  the  Life  of  Jesus  in  many  respects  different  from  those 
of  our  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke."  *  This  extraordinary  propo- 
sition is  maintained  by  arguments  corresponding  to  its  character ; 
for  these  arguments  are  founded  principally  on  passages  in  works 
which  Eichhorn  does  not  suppose  to  be  genuine,  and  which,  from 
the  very  circumstance  of  their  being  spurious,  we  may  infer 
could  not  even  have  been  in  existence  during  the  lifetime  of  those 
to  whom  they  are  ascribed.  As  regards  the  Epistles  of  Clement 
and  Polycarp,  his  great  argument  for  maintaining  that  their 
authors  quoted  histories  of  Christ  different  from  the  canonical 
Gospels  is,  that  words  of  Jesus  are  brought  together  which  do 
not  in  those  Gospels  stand  in  immediate  connection,  and  that 
there  is  somethnes  a  want  of  verbal  correspondence.  The  force 
of  this  mode  of  reasoning  has  already  been  sufficiently  examined. 
Enough,  likewise,  has  been  said  respecting  the  theory  of  an 
Original  Gospel,  and  of  such  modifications  of  it  as  the  apostolical 
fathers  are  imagined  to  have  quoted ;  and  this  theory  may  now  be 
dismissed  from  consideration. 

The  Epistles  of  Clement  and  Polycarp  both  contain  words  of 
Jesus  quoted  in  such  a  manner,  and  so  correspondent  to  words 
reported  by  Matthew  and  Luke,f  that,  if  taken  from  any  book, 
we  may,  in  this  stage  of  the  argument,  conclude,  without  hesita- 
tion, that  they  were  taken  from  the  Gospels,  But  a  doubt  arises, 
whether  those  words  -might  not  have  been  received  immediately 
by  oral  communication  from  apostles  and  other  immediate  disci- 
ples of  Jesus ;   especially  when  we  recollect,  that  Irenaeus  says 

*  Einleit.  in  d.  N.T.,  i.  114.  f  See  Lardner. 


568  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

that  he  had  heard  Polycarp  repeating  the  oral  relations  of  John, 
and  of  other  hearers  of  the  Lord,  concerning  the  doctrine  and 
miracles  of  Jesus,  all  conformably  to  the  Scriptures,  that  is,  to 
the  Gospels. f  The  knowledge  which  Polycarp  derived  from  the 
hearers  of  our  Lord,  Clement  may  have  received  in  the  same 
manner ;  and  therefore,  though  we  may  appeal  to  their  writings 
as  proving  the  authenticity  of  the  Gospels,  we  cannot  appeal  to 
them  as  affording  direct  proof  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels. 

The  manner  in  which  the  writings  ascribed  to  apostolical  fa- 
thers have  been  adduced  in  proof  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels 
is  the  result,  as  it  seems  to  me,  of  an  imperfect  view  of  the 
nature  of  that  proof.  The  mode  of  reasoning  by  which  we  may 
establish  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels  has  been  regarded  as 
much  more  analogous  than  it  is  to  that  by  which  we  prove  histori- 
cally the  genuineness  of  other  ancient  books ;  that  is  to  say, 
through  the  mention  of  their  titles  and  authors,  and  c^uotations 
from  and  notices  of  them,  in  individual,  unconnected  writers. 
This  mode  of  reasoning  is,  in  its  nature,  satisfactory;  and  would 
be  so  in  its  application  to  the  Gospels,  if  the  question  of  their 
genuineness  did  not  involve  the  most  momentous  of  all  questions 
in  the  history  of  our  race, — whether  Christianity  be  a  special 
manifestation  of  God's  love  toward  man,  or  only  the  most  re- 
markable development  of  those  tendencies  to  fanaticism  which 
exist  in  human  nature.  Reasoning  in  the  manner  supposed,  we 
find  their  genuineness  unequivocally  asserted  by  Irenaus ;  we 
may  satisfy  ourselves  that  they  Avere  received  as  genuine  by  Jus- 
tin Martyr ;  we  find  the  Gosj^els  of  Matthew  and  Mark  mentioned 
in  the  beginning  of  the  second  century  by  Papias ;  and  to  the 
genuineness  of  St.  Luke's  Gospel  we  have  his  own  attestation  in 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  Confining  ourselves  to  this  narrow 
mode  of  proof,  we  arrive  at  what  in  a  common  case  would  be  a 
satisfactory  conclusion.  But,  when  we  endeavor  to  strengthen 
this  evidence  by  appealing  to  the  ivritings  ascribed  to  apostolical 
fathers,  we  in  fact  weaken  its  force.  At  the  very  extremity  of 
the  chain  of  evidence,  where  it  ought  to  be  strongest,  we  are 
attaching  defective  links  which  will  bear  no  weight. 

*  See  before,  p.  549. 


APOSTOLICAL   FATHERS.  569 

But  the  direct  historical  evidence  for  the  genuineness  of  the 
Gospels,  as  it  has  been  the  purpose  of  this  volume  to  show,  is  of 
a  very  different  kind  from  what  we  have  just  been  considering. 
It  consists  in  the  indisputable  fact,  that,  throughout  a  connimnity 
of  millions  of  individuals,  scattered  over  Europe,  Asia,  and 
Africa,  the  Gospels  were  regarded  with  the  highest  reverence  as 
the  works  of  those  to  whom  they  are  ascribed,  at  so  early  a 
period  that  there  could  be  no  difficulty  in  determining  whether 
they  were  genuine  or  not,  and  when  every  intelligent  Christian 
must  have  been  deeply  interested  to  ascertain  the  truth.  And 
this  fact  does  not  merely  involve  the  testimony  of  the  great  body 
of  Christians  to  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels :  it  is  in  itself  a 
phenomenon  admitting  of  no  explanation,  except  that  the  four 
Gospels  had  all  been  handed  down  as  genuine  from  the  apostolic 
age,  and  had  everywhere  accompanied  our  religion  as  it  spread 
through  the  world. 


INDEX    I. 


[The  dates  following  fl.  are  in  general  taken  from  Care.] 


Abbadie,  J.,  quoted,  2. 

Abstinence  practised  by  the  Gnostics, 
221,  224  tf. 

Achamoth,  334,  356. 

Acts  of  the  Apostles,  Paley's  com- 
parison of  the,  with  the  Epistles 
of  Paul,  90.  Their  authenticity, 
90  n. 

Acylinus,  215,  218. 

Adamantius,  his  "Dialogue  concern- 
ing the  Right  Faith  in  God,"  212, 
213 

Adelphius,  215,  218. 

.^ons,  174,  202,  207,  208,  216,  220, 
326,  334. 

Agrippa  Castor  (/.  135),  352. 

Alexander  the  Paphlagonian  {ji. 
110),  192. 

Alexandrine  text  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, 45. 

Aliptes,  Hadrian's  use  of  the  word, 
282  n. 

Allegorical  interpretation,  294,  305- 
316,  326. 

Alogi,  The,  388. 

Ambrose,  Bp.  of  Milan  {fl.  374),  352, 
362,  459. 

Ananias,  translator  of  "  The  Gospel 
of  Nicodemus,"  379  n. 

^ATtapxv,  Meaning  of,  82. 

Apocalypse,  Authorship  of  the,  118. 
Its  date,  252. 

Apocryphal  gospels.  The,  54,  338- 
391.  (For  details  see  "Contents," 
pp.  xix.  XX.) 

ApoUonius  of  Tyana  (5.  cir.  4  B.C.), 
192. 

Apostles,  The,  charged  by  the  Gnos- 
tics Avith  Jewish  errors,  G33-335. 
Their  discourses  chiefly  narratives 


of  Christ's  life,  510-514.  Taugiit 
in  Greek,  518.  Christ's  instruc- 
tions to,  530,  531,  533-535. 

Apobtles'  Creed,  The,  185. 

"Apostles,  Memoirs  by  the,"  61, 
114-117. 

Apostolical  Constitutions  cited,  554. 

Apostolical  Fathers,  On  the  writings 
ascribed  to  the,  545-569 ;  whether 
they  afford  any  evidence  of  the 
genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  1-3, 
142  n.,  566-569. 

Aristobulus  {fl.  180),  311. 

Aristotle,  270. 

Arnobius  (fl.  303)  does  not  cite  any 
book  of  Scripture,  125. 

Artemon  (fl.  210),  Heresy  of,  41. 

Asceticism,  354-356.  Of  some  of  the 
Gnostics,  221,  224  ff.  See  also  Li- 
centiousness. 

Athenagoras  ( /?.  177),  124. 

Augustin  (fl.  396)  quoted,  128.  His 
"  Catalogue  of  Heresies,"  212. 

Authority  as  a  foundation  of  belief, 
239,  240. 


Bardesanes  (/.  172),  214  n. 
Barnabas  (/.  34),  What  is  known 

concerning,  157,  517  n.,  556.    The 

Epistle    ascribed    to,    3,   553-560. 

The  Gospel  ascribed  to,  369. 
Bartholomew.  The  Gospel  of,  390. 
Basil  of  CiEsnrea  (fl.  370),  the  first 

to  propound  the  Catholic  doctrine 

of  tradition,  331  n. 
Basilides  { /?.  112),  405.     A  disciple 

of  Glaucias,  204,  328.     Wrote   a 

commentaiy  on  the  Gospels,  352, 

394. 


572 


INDEX. 


Basilidiars,  174,  220.   Mentioned  by 

Justin,  '.'-U5,  206.    Few  in  number, 

221.      Their    morals,    228.      The 

Gospel  said  to  be  used  by  the, 

351-353. 
Baur,  F.  C.,  his  "  Christian  Gnosis  " 

criticised,  180-182  n. 
Beiiusobre,  I.  de,  on  Simon  Magus, 

193  n.     Quoted,  278. 
Belief  and  credit  distinguished,  384. 
Bengel,  J.  A.,,  quoted,  453  n. 
Bentley,    R.,    Extract,    on    various 

readings,  from  his  "  Remarks  on 

Free-thinking,"  418  n. 
Boanerges,  the  name,  mentioned  by 

Justin,  118. 
Bolingbroke,  Lord,  on  the  Apostolic 

Fathers,  2. 
Bury,  A.,  his  Naked  Gospel,  344. 


Cainites,  277,  284,  348-350. 

Caius,  the  Roman  presbyter  {Jl. 
210},  on  Cerinthus,  197,  198. 

Calvin,  J.,  quoted,  321  n.  On  re- 
nouncing human  reason,  335,  33G. 

Calvinism,  321. 

Capernaum,  Different  accounts  of 
the  cure  of  the  leper  at,  521,  522. 

Carpocratians,  220.  Account  of  the, 
267-276.  Improperly  classed  Avith 
the  Gnostics,  268,  277.  Their 
morals,  229,  271-276. 

Cassianus,  Julius  {Jl.  174),  on  celib- 
acy, 355. 

Catholic  Church,  Errors  of  the,  321. 
Its  theory  of  tradition,  331  n.  Its 
claim  to  "infallibility,  335. 

Celsus  (/.  150?),  314.  Quoted,  9, 
215.  Misquoted  by  Eichhorn,  63. 
Account  of  his  work  against  Chris- 
tianity, 78-81.  Calls  the  Simonians 
a  Christian  sect,  194,  195.  Also 
the  Ophians,  287,  288.  Opposes 
allegorical  interpretation,  311. 

Cerdo,  220. 

Cerinthus  {fl.  80).  The  gospel  used 
by,  6,  61,  62,  198,  387-389.  His 
doctrines,  196-200.  Not  conspic- 
uous, 198-200. 

Cerinthians,  220. 

Chauncy,  C.,  his  "Complete  View 
of  Episcopacy,"  562  n. 

Christ,  Consistency  in  the  Gospel 
representation  of;  53,  54.  Called 
a  magician,  126.  Born  in  a  cave, 
127.  Justin's  account  of  liis  bap- 
tism,   128,    129.       A    maker    of 


ploughs  and  5'-okes,  127.  Sayings 
attributed  to  him  not  recorded  in 
Gospels,  130,  131,  354-356.  Dis- 
tinguished from  the  man  Jesus,  by 
Cerinthus,  196,  199,  2U0;  and  by 
other  Gnostics,  290,  291;  St.  .lohn 
does  not  allude  to  this  doctrine, 
202.  The  Carpocratian  doctrine 
concerning,  270,  271.  His  differ- 
ent knowledge  as  God  and  as  man, 
334.  His  brothers,  365,  371,  432. 
Gospels  of  the  Infancy  of,  374- 
384.  His  descent  into  Hell,  380  n. 
Date  of  his  death,  382  n.  Geneal- 
ogies of,  432,  433.  His  wonder- 
ful character,  406,  407,  409.  The 
first  three  Gospels  relate  chiefly 
to  his  ministry  in  Galilee,  516  n. 

Christianity,  Present  state  of  belief, 
in,   149.     Contrasted  with  Pagan 
philosophy,  164  fF.  '  Not  derived 
from   any  previous    system,   168. 
Divinity  of,  248. 

Christians,  The  earlv,  their  number 
in  the  lid  century,  28-31.  (The 
earl}'  heretics  not  included  under 
this  term,  35  n.)  Their  reverence 
for  the  Scriptures,  35-41,  58.  Di- 
vided into  Jewish  and  Gentile, 
51,  107,  108.  Are  all  witnesses  to 
the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels, 
83-85;  their, means  and  motives 
for  determining  it,  85-87.  Their 
intellectual  and  moral  character, 
88,  89,  102.  Their  faith  in  Cliristi- 
anitv  identical  with  their  belief  in 
the  'Gospel,  91-93.  Their  condi- 
tion between  the  death  of  St.  John 
and  the  time  of  Justin,  138.  Their 
belief  influenced  by  their  circum- 
stances, 167,  168.  The  earliest 
converts  had  few  opportunities  for 
getting  correct  notions  of  Christi- 
anity, 243.  False  teachers  among, 
244-252.  Not  continuously  per- 
secuted, 256.  See  also  Fathers, 
Gnostics,  Heretics,  Jewish  Chris- 
tians. 

Chrysostom  {fl.  398),  459.  A  hom- 
ily ascribed  to,  quoted,  382  n. 
Rejects  the  miracles  of  the  Infancy, 
378. 

Church,  No  universal,  before  the 
Hid  centuiy,  24,  25. 

Cicero's  Epistles  to  Atticus,  146. 

Clement  of  Alexandria  {fl.  192), 
210,  213.  His  account  of  the 
words  spoken  at  Christ's  baptism. 


INDEX. 


573 


6,128,  Date  of  his  death,  7.  Gives 
various  readings  of  Matt.  v.  10; 
9,  G5.  His  reverence  for  the  Scrip- 
tures, 39.  On  certain  paraphrases 
of  tiie  Gospels,  65,  66.  Evidences 
of  tlie  genuineness  of  the  Gospels 
afforded  by  him,  77,  78.  On  the 
source  of  tlie  Gospels  of  Mark  and 
Luke,  78,  408.  His  inaccuracy  in 
quotation,  120.  Savings  ascribed 
to  Christ  by,  130, '131.  Quoted, 
185.  Does  not  mention  Dositheus, 
196  n.;  nor  Cerinthus,  198;  nor 
the  Clementine  Homilies,  298; 
nor  the  Epistles  ascribed  to  Igna- 
tius, 562;  nor  any  gospel  of  liasi- 
lides,  351;  but  quotes  his  com- 
mentary, 352.  On  Valentinus  and 
Marcion,  204,  227;  the  followers 
of  Prodicus,  216;  the  Basilidians, 
228;  the  morals  of  the  heretics, 
224,  231,  232,  275 ;  the  Nicolaitans, 
253;  martyrdom,  258;  the  Carpo- 
cratians,  268-273;  the  Ophians, 
284,  286,  288.  His  use  of  uMti- 
yopicj,  306.  States  that  the  Gnos- 
tics claimed  Matthias  as  a  leader, 
328.  On  secret  tradition,  329. 
On  the  pretensions  of  the  Gnostics, 
333,  335.  On  the  Gospel  accord- 
ing to  the  Egyptians,  353-357. 
An  interpolation  in,  359  n.  His 
"  Hvpotvposes  "  quoted,  360,  361. 
On '"The  Preaching  of  Peter," 
367.  Countenances  the  doctrine 
of  the  virginity  of  Mary  after  child- 
birth, 372.  Wronglv  supposed  to 
recognize  Mark  xvi.  19  as  gen- 
uine, 445  n.  Quotes  the  "  Shep- 
herd of  Hermas,"  551.  On  the 
Epistle  ascribed  to  Barnabas,  553, 
554. 

Clement  of  Rome  ( /?.  98  ?),  First  Epis- 
tle of,  3,  546-548.  Second  Epis- 
tle falsel}'  ascribed  to,  355,  548. 
Wrongly  said  to  quote  Mark  xvi. 
19,  445  n. 

Clementine  Homilies,  367.  On  the 
Jewish  Law,  186.  On  Simon  Ma- 
gus, 195.   Account  of  the,  298,  299. 

Cneph,  284. 

Collins,  Anthony,  417,  418  n. 

Community  of  goods  and  women, 
268,  272,  273. 

Confucius,  268. 

Controversy,  Theological,  325. 

Correspondences  of  the  first  three 
Gospels,  463-544. 


Cotelier,  J.  B.,  quoted,  565  n. 
Credit  and  behef  distinguished,  384. 
Credulity  of  mankind,  3h3,  3b4. 
Cud  worth.  li.,  criticised,  2b  I  n. 
Cyprian,  Bp    of  Cartilage  (./?•  248), 

his  quotations  from  the  Gospels, 

125. 


Dailt.iS,  J.,  quoted,  453  n.  On  the 
Epistles  of  Ignatius,  562  n.,  565  n., 
566. 

Demiurgus,  The,  170. 

Diatessaron.     See  Tatian. 

Dion  Cassius,  quoted,  107  n. 

Dionvsius  of  Alexandria  {Ji.  247)  on 
Cerinthus,  197,  198. 

Dionysius,  Bp.  of  Corinth  (_/?.  170), 
quoted,  8.  Denounces  the  cor- 
rupters of  the  Scriptures,  38,  62. 
Quotes  the  First  Epistle  of  Clem- 
ent of  PiOme,  547,  548. 

Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus,  inaccu- 
rate in  quotation,  121. 

Divorce  sanctioned  by  the  Pharisees, 
537. 

Doceta;,  202,  214  n.,  363.  The  name 
defined,  171. 

"Doctrina  Orientalis,"  208  n.,  221, 
394.     Quoted,  356. 

Doctrines,  Origin  of  false,  162,  165, 
167. 

Dositheus,  a  pretended  Messiah,  196. 


Ebion,  197  n. 

Ebionites,  or  Jewish  Christians,  108, 
184,  213,  388.  The  Gospel  of  the, 
6,  9,  155-159,  427-430,  436.  See 
also  JeAvish  Christians. 

Egypt,  Pseudo-Christians  in,  282. 
Allegorical  meaning  of,  313, 

Egyptian  worship  impure,  276. 
Egyptian  pantheism,  279,  Egyp- 
tian mythology  confused,  281. 

"Egvptians,  Tlie  Gospel  according 
to'the,"  77,  354-358,  548. 

Eichhorn,  J.  G.,  115  n.  Denies  that 
the  Apostolic  Fathers  and  Justin 
Martyr  used  our  Gospels,  2,  5,  60. 
His  theory  of  the  origin  of  the  Gos- 
pels, 5-9,  488-491;  refuted,  24-27, 
60-67,  491-510.  His  inconsisten- 
cy, 52,  53,  66.  On  Tatian's  Diates- 
saron, 386.  An  oversight  of,  388 
n.  On  the  Apostolical  Fathers, 
545,  567.  His  use  of  Clement's 
Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthian^ 


574 


INDEX. 


548.  On  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas, 
560.  On  the  Ignatian  Epistles, 
566. 

Encratites,  224,  225,  386,  387  n. 

Ephesu«,  Booivs  of  magic  burnt  in,  33. 

Epipiianes  (/.  137),  his  work  "Con- 
cerning Justice,"  268,  269.  His 
doctrines,  272.  Taught  promis- 
cuous intercourse  of  the  sexes,  272, 
273,  275. 

Epiphaniuf?,  Bp.  of  Salamis  {jl.  368), 
212,  213.  Quotes  the  Gospel  of 
the  Ebionites,  6,  436.  His  account 
of  the  Ebionites  inaccurate,  156. 
His  stor}'  about  St.  John  and 
Ebion,  197  n.  His  blunders  about 
Cerinthus,  199,  200.  His  extracts 
from  writings  of  certain  Valentin- 
ians,  207,  210.  His  character  as 
an  author,  211,  278.  His  use  of 
the  term  "Gnostics"  as  a  specific 
name,  276-279.  On  "The  Gospel 
of  Eve,"  279-283;  "of  Perfec- 
tion," 345;  "of  Judas,"  349;  "of 
Cerinthus,"  387-389.  "  The  Egyp- 
tian Gospel,"  356.  His  errors 
about  tne  Ophians,  283,  288.  Does 
not  mention  a  gospel  of  Basilides, 
351.  On  the  miracles  of  the  In- 
fancy, 378.  On  the  "  Acts  of  Pi- 
late," 381  n-,  382  n.  On  the  use 
of  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  by  the 
Ebionites  and  Nazarenes,  427,  428. 
On  the  genuineness  of  Luke  xxii. 
43,  44;  455,  456. 

Eternal  Gospel,  The,  344. 

Eusebius  of  Cajsarea  (/.  315),  213, 
425.  The  first  to  mention  Tatian's 
Gospel,  32.  His  mention  of  Jus- 
tin, 135.  Quotes  I'apias,  139.  His 
ignorance  about  the  Gnostics,  277. 
On  Agrippa  Castor,  352.  His  ac- 
count of  Serapion's  tract  on  "  The 
Gospel  according  to  Peter,"  362. 
His  mention  of  that  Gospel,  365 ;  of 
other  apocryphal  gospels,  351,  366. 
On  the  "Acts  of  Pilate,"  381  n. 
On  the  use  of  the  Gospel  of  Mat- 
thew by  Symmachus,  427  n.  On 
the  genuineness  of  Mark  xvi.  9-20; 
445,  446.  On  Mark's  preaching  at 
Alexandria,  449.  On  the  Epistles 
of  Clement,  547,  548.  On  the 
"  Shepherd  of  Hermas,"  552.  On 
Barnabas,  554.  On  the  Ignatian 
Epistles,  562  n.,  564. 

Eusebius  of  Emesa  {jl.  341),  213. 

Eutychians,  214  n. 


Eye,  The  Gospel  of,  279-283,  345. 
Evil,  Gnosticism  an  attempt  to  ex- 
plain the  existence  of,  187. 


Fabricius,  J.  A.,  Account  of  his 
"  Codex  Apocryphus  Novi  Testa- 
menti,"  341  n. 

Fathers  of  the  Church,  The,  inaccu- 
rate in  quotation,  119-121.  The 
earlier  and  later  Fathers  should  be 
distinguished,  210. 

Faustus,  the  Manichi^an,  8. 

Felix,  .Minutius,  {Jl.  22o)  affords  no 
evidence  for  the  Gospels.  125. 

Folly,  The  history  of,  might  be  more 
instructive  than  our  Histories  of 
Philosophy,  337. 


Gennesaret,  Different  dates  as- 
signed in  the  Gospels  to  the  voyage 
to,  520,  521. 

Gentile  Christians,  Feelings  of,  to- 
wards the  Jewish  Christians,  108. 

Genuineness  of  books,  Ancient  want 
of  curiosity  as  to  the,  554. 

German  philosophy,  182  n. 

Gibbon,  E.,  on  the  population  of  the 
Roman  Empire,  28.  On  the  Gnos- 
tics, 161,  180.  Follows  Jerome  in 
a  misstatement,  203  n. 

Gibson,  E.,  Bp.-  Third  letter  of,  2. 

Gieseler,  J.  C  L.,  546. 

Glaucias,  204,  328. 

"  Gnomologia,"  490,  508,  509. 

Gnostics,  160-413.  For  details  see 
the  "Contents,"  pp.  xii.-xviii. 

Gospel,  TO  EvayyeTuov,  Use  of  the 
word,  64,  82  n.,  116,  136,  279,  343, 
344. 

"Gospel  according  to  the  Twelve 
Apostles,  The,"  369  n. 

"  Gospel  of  Perfection.  The,"  345. 

"Gospel  of  the  Infancy',  The,"  22. 

Gospels,  The  number  of  copies  of  the,* 
used  in  the  Hd  century,  31-33; 
their  cost,  31.  The  order  in  Avhich 
they  were  Avritten,  78,  82.  Their 
literary  style,  109.  Read  in  the 
churches  on  the  Lord's  day,  116, 
133,  136. 

For  further  details  see  the  "  Con- 
tents," pp  vii.-xxi.  See  also  Eich- 
horn,  ajid  "  Original  Gospel." 

Gregorj"-  of  Nazianzus  {Jl.  370)  on 
the  decline  of  the  Gnostics,  220. 

Gregory  of  Nyssa  {Jl.  370),  445. 


INDEX. 


575 


Gregory  of  Tours  {fl.  573),  380  n., 
3hl  n. 

Griosbach,  J  J.,  202  n.  An  extrava- 
gant assertion  of,  45  n.  His  edition 
of  the  New  Testament,  421.  List 
of  various  readintrs  in  Matt,  i.-viii., 
422-425.    On  Mark  xvi.  9-20 ;  444. 

Grotius,  H.,  quoted,  519  n. 


Haiin,  August,  341  n. 

Harpocras,  a  mistake  for  Carpocrates, 
3U0  n. 

"  Hebrews,  The  Gospel  of  the,"  6. 
According  to  Eichhorn  derived 
from  the  "Original  Gospel,"  61; 
but  really  the  Hebrew  original  of 
Matthew',  61,  156,  340,  427-430, 
436.  Not  Tatian's  Diatessaron, 
387. 

Hegelianism,  180,  181  n. 

Helena  and  Simon  Magus,  190-195. 

Hell,  The  Harrowing  of.  380  n. 

Hellenistic  Greek  the  language  of  the 
Gospels,  50-52,  109. 

Hellenists,  518. 

Heracleon,  Commentar}'-  of,  on  John, 
208,  209,  394.  Quoted,  227.  On 
maityrdoni,  258. 

Heretics,  How  the  Gospels  were  re- 
ceived by  the,  155  it.  The  term 
defined  by  Origen,  173;  equivalent 
to  ''Gnostics,"  185. 

Hennas  {ji.  dr.  150),  The  "Shep- 
herd" of,  3,  550-553. 

Hermogenes  (  fl.  170)  on  Evil,  186. 

Hierocles  (/.  302),  192. 

Hilary,  Bp.  of  Poictiers  {fl.  354),  128. 
Quoted,  455. 

Hippolvtus,  Bp.  of  Ostia  {fl.  220), 
458." 

Homer,  110. 

Hypostatize,  Use  of  the  term,  174  n. 


Idolatry,  233-235. 

Ignatius  (/.  101),  The  Epistles  as- 
cribed to,  3,  203  n.,  550,  560-566. 

Illumination,  Spiritual.     See  Kea.son. 

Interpolations,  how  detected,  52.  In 
the  Gospels,  16-19,  35,  36,  48,  49, 
431-462;  their  origin,  18.  What 
evidence  is  necessary  to  prove  the 
genuineness  of  a  passage,  452-454. 

Interpretation  of  the  Scriptures,  Ra- 
tional principles  of,  neglected,  324, 
325,  <b'ce  also  Allegorical  interpre- 
tation. 


Intuition.     See  Reason. 

Iren;eus  (/.  180  a.i>.,  1,  34).  213. 
The  first  to  speak  of  the  four  Gos- 
pels, 7.  On  the  general  reception 
of  the  Gospels,  34;  his  testimony 
to  their  genuineness,  39,  71-74;  hia 
account  of  their  publication,  72, 
498;  of  their  characteristics,  73. 
Quotes  Papias,  130.  On  the  (Jnos- 
tics,  172-395,  passim.  On  the  Mar- 
cosians,  175,  376;  the  Valentinians, 
185,  2n4,  206,  207,  226;  their  Gos- 
pel, 346-348,  350,  351.  Derives 
the  Gnostics  from  Simon  Magus, 
189,  193-195.  Does  not  mention 
Dositheus,  196  n.  On  Cerintinis, 
196-200 ;  the  Marcionites,  2U9,  393 ; 
the  Basilidians,  221,  22b  ;  the  unity 
of  the  church,  222;  the  Encrat'tes, 
225 ;  the  fees  accepted  by  the  (Jnos- 
tics  for  teaching  their  doctrines, 
247 ;  the  Gnostic  avoidance  of  mar- 
tyrdom, 207;  the  Carpocr 'tians, 
268-277;  the  Gnostic  aversion  to 
the  Law  of  Moses,  294.  Does  not 
notice  the  Clementine  Homilies, 
298.  Ou  the  Ophian.s,  283-289. 
His  allegorical  interpretat'ons,  306 
n.  On  the  types  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, 310;  secret  oral  tradition, 
328-334;  the  Gospel  of  Judas,  348- 
350;  the  Gnostic  perversions  of 
Scripture,  395;  the  Hebrew  origi- 
nal of  Matthew,  425,  427.  Quotes 
Luke  xxii.  43,  44;  456.  On  the 
Epistle  of  Clement  to  the  Corin- 
thians, 547.  On  Polycarp,  549. 
Quotes  "The  Shepherd  of  Her- 
nias," 551.  Does  not  mention  the 
Epistle  of  Barnabas,  558;  nor  the 
Ignatian  Epistles,  562. 

Isidore,  the  (inostic  {fl.  135),  228. 

Isis,  What  is  symbolized  by,  280. 
In  inscriptions,  280,  281  n. 

Isocrates,  quoted  inaccurately  by 
Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus,  121. 


James  the  Less,  The  Protevangelion 
ascribed  to,  370-374. 

Jerome,  St.  [fl.  378),  on  books  as- 
cribed to  Simon,  193  n.  A  mis- 
statement of,  203  n.  His  opinion 
of  Origen,  312.  The  translation  of 
the  Gospel  of  the  Nativity  of  Mary 
ascribed  to,  374.  On  the  Hebrew 
original  of  Matthew,  425, 428.    On 


676 


INDEX. 


Symmachus.  427.  On  the  genu- 
ineness of  Mark  xvi.  9-20;  445: 
of  Luke  xxii  43,  44;  455.  On  the 
Epistle  of  IJarnabas,  554.  Gives 
the  words  of  Ignatius  at  his  mar- 
t\rdom,  563  n.  Other  citations, 
352,  356,  362,  365,  369. 

Jesus,  The  man,  distinguished  from 
the  iEon  Christ  bv  Cerinthus,  196, 
199,  200.  St.  John  does  not  ad- 
vert to  tliis  doctrine,  202.  See  also 
Christ. 

Tews,  Proselytes  of  the,  107  n.  Their 
law  and  histor}^  a  stumbling-block 
to  Gentile  Christians,  188.  Gnos- 
ticism as  a  separation  of  Christi- 
anitv  from  Judaism,  294.  Their 
national  blindness,  532,  538.  Their 
false  notions  of  the  Messiah,  536. 
"  The  Law,"  537.  Their  condition, 
70-138  A.D.J  558,  559. 

Tewish  Christians,  Their  early  sepa- 
ration from  the  Gentile  Christians, 
61,  108,  157,  234-236.  Called 
Ebionites,  108.  Used  the  Hebrew 
original  of  Matthew,  108,  425-430. 
Cerinthus  said  by  Epiphanius  to 
be  their  leader,  199.  Did  not  recog- 
nize St.  Paul  as  an  Apostle,  369  n. 
Their  doctrines,  426.  See  also 
Ebionites. 

John  the  Baptist,  134. 

John  the  Evangelist,  supposed  by 
Justin  to  be  the  author  of  the  Apoc- 
alypse, 118,  Spent  his  last  days 
among  the  Gentiles,  157.  Sur- 
vived the  other  Apostles,  158. 
And  Cerinthus,  197.  A  Gospel  of 
the  Infancy  ascribed  to,  376. 

John,  the  Gospel  of.  Interpolations 
in,  17,  458-462.  Its  style,  50. 
Mentioned  and  characterized  by 
Irenseus,  72,  73.  Composed  last, 
78,  82.  Origen  on  a  disagree- 
ment between  it  and  the  other  Gos- 
pels, 103.  Used  by  Justin,  134. 
Does  not  allude  to'  the  Gnostics, 
202.  Its  genuineness,  408.  Its 
character,  516  n. 

John  the  Presbyter,  quoted,  139. 

Jones,  Jeremiah,  "The  Canonical 
Authority  of  the  New  Testament," 
b}-,  criticised,  341  n. 

Josephus  perhaps  mentions  Simon 
Magus,  191.  The  interpolated  men- 
tion of  Jesus  in,  453. 

Judaism.     See  Jews. 

Judas,  The  Gospel  of,  345,  349-350 


Jude,  The  Epistle  of,  not  genuine. 

201,  250. 

Justin  Martyr  (fl.  dr.  150  A  p  ,  1,  5), 
213.  His  mention  of  the  Gospels, 
3-5,  37.  The  "Memoirs  by  the 
Apostles,"  4,  6,  9,  457;  said  b^' 
Eichhorn  to  be  derived  from  the 
"Original  Gospel,"  61;  were  the 
"Gospels"  of  Irenajus,  137.  Evi- 
dence of  the  genuineness  of  the 
Gospels  derived  from  his  writings, 
112-137.  Sketch  of,  113.  the 
order  of  his  '*  Apologies  "  inverted, 
115  n.  His  inaccuracy  in  quota- 
tion, 121-123.  Gives  accounts  con- 
cerning Christ  not  to  be  found  in 
the  Gospels,  125-130.  His  account 
of  Simon  Magus,  190,  193.  On 
Cerinthus,  199.  On  the  Gnostics, 
205,  206.  On  eating  idol-sacri- 
fices, 232.  Calls  -the"^  God  of  the 
Old  Testament  the  Logos,  300,  301. 
His  allegorical  interpretations  of 
the  Old  Testament,  306  n.,  309. 
Does  not  mention  a  secret  tradition, 
329.  Refers  to  the  Acts  of  Pilate, 
381  n.  Does  not  recognize  Mark 
xvi.  9-20  as  genuine,  445  n. 

Justinian,  Code  of,  220. 

Juvencus  (/.  330),  128. 

Kaye,  J.,  Bishop,  on  Clement's  view 
of  Gnosis  and  tradition,  331  n. 

Lactantius  (/.  303),  on  the  style 
of  the  Scriptures,  109.  On  0}'- 
prian,  125.  Does  not  speak  of  the 
Gospels,  125.  The  words  spoken 
at  Christ's  baptism,  128.  On  the 
obstinate  belief  of  the  Pagans,  240 
n.  On  "  The  Preaching  of  Peter," 
367. 

Lardner,  N.,  quoted,  3.  On  the 
Apostolical  Fathers,  545, 546.  On 
Hermas,  552  n. 

Larroque,  M.,  562  n. 

Latimer,  H.  "  Though  I  cannot  ar- 
gue for  my  religion,  I  can  die  for 
it,"  259. 

Law,  Christ's  use  of  the  word,  537. 

Le  Clerc,  J.,  on  allegorical  interpre- 
tation, 306  n.,  307  n. 

Leper  at  Capernaum,  Different  ac- 
counts of  the  cure  of  the,  521,  522. 

Less,  G.,  on  the  testimony  of  the 
Apostolic  Fathers  to  the' books  of 
the  New  Testament,  3. 


INDEX. 


577 


Letter  and  spirit,  314  n.,  335,  336. 

Liberty,  Christian,  what  it  is,  236, 
237.'  How  to  be  attained,  237,  238. 
The  doctrine  perverted,  238,  239. 

Licentiousness  of  the  Gnostics,  208 
n.,  225-229,  233,  234,  272.  Ac- 
counted a  religious  duty,  273-276. 

Locke,  J.,  misrepresented  by  VYeg- 
scheider  and  others,  178. 

Logos,  134.  Represented  as  the  God 
of  the  Old  Testament,  300-303. 
Justin  Martyr's  reference  to  the, 
300.  Tertullian's  account  of  the, 
301-303.  The  eternal  Logos  dis- 
tinguished from  the  incarnate  by 
Clement,  361. 

Longinus,  Various  readings  in  the 
"Treatise  on  the  Sublime"  of, 
419  n. 

Lucan,  The  followers  of,  charged 
with  altering  the  Gospel-history, 
64. 

Lucian  of  Samosata,  192. 

Lucretius,  Various  readings  in,  419  n. 

Luke,  the  Evangelist,  517.  The  au- 
thor of  the  Acts,  90  n.  Not  a  Gen- 
tile, 107  n.     On  Barnabas,  556. 

Luke,  the  Gospel  of.  Interpolations 
in,  17,  48,  49,  449-458.  Marcion 
used  a  mutilated  copy  of,  62,  337, 
345.  Tertullian  on  the  genuine- 
ness of,  40,  76.  Records  the  gospel 
preached  by  Paul,  72,  102.  Char- 
acterized by  Irenajus,  73.  Praised 
by  St.  Paul,  82.  Discrepancies 
between  it  and  Matthew,  104. 
Luke's  testimony  to  its  genuine- 
ness, 139.  Its  account  of  the  Na- 
tivity compared  with  Matthew's, 
432-436.  The  proportion  of  pns- 
sages  coincident  with  the  other 
Gospels,  464.  Differs  from  Mat- 
thew and  agrees  with  Mark  in  the 
order  of  events,  470-473.  Not 
copied  from  Matthew,  475-488; 
nor  from  an  "  Original  Gospel," 
488-510.  Explanation  of  its  cor- 
respondences with  the  other  Gos- 
pels, 510-524.  Date  of  its  compo- 
sition, 525.  Illustration  of,  from 
the  circumstances  of  its  composi- 
tion, 528-542. 


Magi,  The  story  of  the,  criticised, 
435.  Description  of  the  star,  quo- 
ted from  an  Ignatian  epistle,  565  n. 

Manes,  214  n. 


Manichfcans,  The,  219.  The  Gospel 
used  by,  344. 

Manilius,  Various  readings  in,  419  n. 

Manuscripts,  Alterations  in,  8,  23, 
24,  62.  How  many  MSS.  of  the 
Gospel  have  been  examined,  19. 

Marcion  (  ft.  130),  363,  398,  405.  Ac- 
counts of,  204,  205,  209,  210,  294. 
His  objections  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment answered  by  Tertullian,  303, 
304.  Rejected  allegorical  inter- 
pretation, 310,  316.  His  "Anti- 
theses," 325.  On  the  Jewish 
errors  of  the  Apostles,  332,  333. 
A  poem  against,  quoted,  552. 

Marcion,  The  (iospel  of,  6.  Was  a 
mutilated  copy  of  Luke,  40,  42, 
62,  64,  209,  210,  332,  340,  345,  392, 
393,  401,  405.  Derived  by  Eich- 
horn  from  the  "Original  Gospel," 
61.  Contained  in  Thilo's  "  Codex 
Apocryplius,"  341  n. 

Marcionites,  The,  184.  Their  doc- 
trines, 170-174.  Mentioned  by 
Justin,  205,  206.  Their  number, 
214  n.,  219-222.  Their  asceticism, 
221, 224,  225.  Courted  martyrdom, 
258.  Used  Luke  and  ten  Epistles 
of  Paul,  337;  and  no  apocryphal 
Gospels,  343.  Their  contempt  for 
Judaism,  401,  450.  Do  not  quote 
the  interpolation  in  Luke  ix.  55, 
56;  452. 

Marcosians,  The,  376,  378.  Irenjeus 
on,  175  n. 

Marginal  readings  often  introduced 
into  the  text  by  copyists,  18,  453  n. 

Mark,  the  Evangelist,  157,  517  n. 

Mark,  The  Gospel  of,  said  to  be  cited 
bv  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  2.  In- 
terpolation in,  17,  443-449.  Found- 
ed on  the  narrative  of  Peter,  37, 
72,  78,  82,  102,  118,  139,  448,  449. 
Its  character,  48,  73, 134,  479.  The 
proportion  of  passages  coincident 
with  the  other  Gospels,  464.  Dif- 
fers from  Matthew  and  agrees  with 
Luke  in  the  order  of  events,  470- 
473.  Not  copied  from  Matthew 
and  Luke,  475-488;  nor  from  an 
"  Original  Gospel,"  488-510.  Ex- 
planation of  its  correspondences 
with  the  other  Gospels,  510-524. 
Date  of  its  composition,  525.  Its 
arrangement,  529. 

Marsh,  H.,  Bishop,  115  n.,  519  n. 
Quoted,  3,  4.  His  theory  of  the 
origin  of  the  Gospels,  60,  488  ff. 


?>1 


578 


INDEX. 


Martyrdom  avoided  by  the  Gnostics, 
256-259;  but  not  bv  the  Marcion- 
ites,  258.  Tertulhan  on,  259-261, 
263.     Origen  on,  261,  262. 

Mary,  Gospels  of  the  Nativity  of, 
370-374.  A  virgin  after  child- 
birth, 372. 

Massuet,  R.,  quoted,  199  n. 

Matter,  J.,  on  the  Gnostics,  180. 

Matthew,  the  Evangelist,  The  "  Gos- 
pel of  the  Nativity  of  Mary"  as- 
cribed to,  374;  also  a  Gospel  of 
the  Infancy,  376. 

Matthew,  The  Gospel  of,  said  to  be 
cited  by  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  2. 
Original Iv  written  in  Hebrew,  15, 
56,  72,  82,  108,  139,  156,  425-430, 
519,  525.  Interpolations  in,  16, 
17,  48,  56,  431-442.  Testimony  of 
Papias  to,  37.  Characterized  by 
Irenseus,  73.  Written  before  the 
other  Gospels,  78.  Discrepances 
between  it  and  Luke,  104.  The 
Hebrew  original  used  by  the 
Jewish  Christians,  108,  425-430. 
Justin's  agreement  with,  in  cita- 
tions from  the  Old  Testament,  132 
n.  Resembles  Luke,  140.  U'ed 
in  part  bj'  the  Cerinthians,  387- 
389.  List  of  various  readings  in 
ch.  i.-viii.  of,  422-425.  The  pro- 
portion of  passages  coincident  with 
the  other  Gospels,  464.  In  the 
order  of  events  Mark  and  Luke 
differ  from,  more  than  from  each 
other,  470-473,  520,  528,  529.  The 
supposition  that  they  copied  from 
him,  475-488 ;  that  all  copied  from 
an  Original  Gospel,  488-510.  Ex- 
planation of  the  correspondences, 
510-524. 

Matthias,  the  Apostle,  claimed  as  a 
leader  by  the  Gnostics,  328.  The 
(iospel  according  ti>,  360-362. 

"  Memoirs  by  the  Apostles,  The." 
tSee  Justin. 

Menander  the  successor  of  Simon 
Magus,  The  doctrines  of,  196. 

Merintlius,  388,  3S9. 

Methodius  {Jl.  290),  128. 

Michaelis.  J.  D.,  60. 

Mill,  J.,  his  edition  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, 417. 

Millennium,  The.  197, 198.  Quotation 
from  ra])ias  about,  130. 

Minutius  Ktlix.     Ste  Felix. 

Miracles.  147-151,  322 

"Mone}"^  ci  angers,  Be  good,"  130. 


Monophysite  heresy,  456. 

Montanists,  260. 

Mosheim,  J.  L.  von,  his  notes  to  Cud« 

worth,  281  n. 
Murat'iri,    L.  A.,  Quotation  from  a 

Canon  discovered  by,  552,  553. 


Nazakknes,  427,  428. 

Neander,  J.A.  W.,  546. 

New  Testament,  Genuineness  of  the 
books  of  the,  89-91.  Allegorically 
interpreted  by  the  theosophic  Gnos- 
tics, 326.  See  also  Gospels,  Vari- 
ous readings. 

Nicodenius,  The  Gospel  of,  379  — 
363  n. 

Nicolaitans,  277  n.,  349.  Means  fol- 
lowers of  Balaam  in  the  Apoca- 
lypse, 252 ;  afterwards  supposed  to 
be  a  Gnostic  sect,  258. 

Nonnus,  458. 


Old  Testament,  The,  reverenced 
by  the  early  Christians,  37,  38 ;  who 
adopted  Jewish  notions  concerning 
it,  317-319.  Aversion  of  the  Gen- 
tiles to,  188.  Views  of  the  Gnos- 
tics on,  294-298,  316,  317;  of  the 
Fathers,  298-306,  309-315 ;  of  Phi- 
lo,  307. 

Olshausen,  H.,'  on  the  Apostolical 
Fathers,  5 16. 

Onesimus,  A  Gospel  of  the  'Infancy 
ascribed  to,  376. 

Ophians,  The,  277.  Their  doctrines, 
283-287.  Origen's  account  of,  283 
287,  288;  its  disagreement  from 
that  of  Iren^eus,  289-293. 

Oral  tradition,  98,  99,  328-334. 

Origen  {Jl.  230),  210,  213,  215.  On 
the  general  use  of  the  Gospels,  32. 
His  reverence  f'r  the  Scriptures, 
41.  On  the  various  readings  in 
the  Gospels,  43-47.  Sketch  of, 
81.  On  the  discrepances  between 
the  Gospels,  103.  On  the  style  of 
the  Scriptures,  109.  His  accuracy 
in  quotation,  120.  On  the  cave  of 
the  Nativity,  127.  Sayings  as- 
cribed to  Christ  by,  130,  131.  Un- 
like Tertullian,  186.  His  definition 
of  a  heretic,  173.  On  the  Simo- 
nians,  194,  195,  208.  On  Dosi- 
theus,  196.  Does  not  name  Cerin- 
thus,  198.  On  Heracleon,  208.  Not 
the  author  of  "A  Dialogue  on  the 


INDEX. 


579 


Right  Faith  in  God,"'  212.  On  the 
morals  of  the  Gnostics,  225.  On 
martyrdom,  261,  262.  On  the 
Ophians,  283,  286-291.  On  allegor- 
ical interpretation,  294,  .311—315;  a 
specimen  of  his  interpretation,  305 
n.  On  the  Gnostics'  rejection  of 
Judaism,  295.  The  Homilies  on 
Luke  ascribed  to,  365,  374;  quoted 
on  the  Gospel  of  the  Basil idians, 
351-353.  On  "The  Gospel  ac- 
cordint^  to  Peter,"  365;  the  Pro- 
tevanijelion  of  James,  370,  371; 
the  Hebrew  original  of  Matthew, 
425.  Does  not  quote  Mark  xvi. 
9-20;  445:  nor  Luke  xxii.  43,  44; 
455.  On  the  "  Shepherd  of  Her- 
mas,"  551 ;  and  the  Epistle  of  Bar- 
nabas, 553.     Quotes  Ignatius,  562. 

"  Original  Gospel,"  The,  according  to 
Eichhorn's  theory,  5-9,  60-63,  488- 
510. 

Orobio,  I.,  quoted,  389. 

Osiris,  What  is  symbolized  by,  280. 


Paganism,  how  believed,  240  n. 
Impurities  of,  276. 

Paley,  W.,  on  Justin  Martyr,  3. 
Hi's  "  Hora;  Paulin^e,"  90.  On  the 
Apostolical  Fathers,  545. 

"Pallavicini,  The  New  Gospel  of 
Cardinal,"  344. 

Pantheism,  279,  280. 

Papias  {jl.  110?),  mentions  the  Gos- 
pels of  Matthew  and  Mark,  36, 
37,  139,  497 ;  the  Hebrew  original 
of  Matthew,  57,  425.  Quoted  by 
Irena;us,  130. 

Paraphrases  of  the  Gospels,  66. 

Patriarch,  282  n. 

Paul  the  Apostle,  157,  204,  550  n., 
556.  Testimon}'  of  the  Apostolic 
Fathers  to  the  genuineness  of  his 
Epistles,  3.  Paley's  compai-ison 
of  his  Epistles  with  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  90.  The  genuineness  of 
three  Epistles  disputed,  90.  Does 
not  allude  to  the  Gnostics,  201. 
His  opponents,  245-250.  Called 
the  Apostle  of  the  Heretics,  332; 
yet  charged  by  the  Gnostics  with 
Jewish  errors,  333.  Ten  Epistles 
used  by  the  Marcionites,  337. 
Not  recognized  as  an  Apostle  by 
the  Hebrew  Christians,  369  n. 
How  qualified  to  be  an  Apostle, 
B17n. 


Pearson,  J.,  Bishop,  562  n.,  565  n. 

Persecutions  of  the  early  Chrislians 
not  continuous,  256.  &ee  also  Mar- 
tyrdom. 

Peter,  the  Apostle,  157,  204,  517  n. 
The  Gospel  of  Mark  founded  on 
his  oral  narratiye.  —  See  Mark. 
His  rebuke  of  Simon  Magus,  193. 
The  Second  Epistle  of,  spurious, 
201,  250.  In  the  Clementine  Hom- 
ilies, 299:  in  the  Second  Epistle 
of  Clement,  548.  "  Ihe  Preach- 
ing of  Peter,"  367.  Serapion's  ac- 
count of  the  Gospel  according  to, 
362-366. 

Pharisees,  The,  sanction  divorce,  537. 
Christ's  denunciations  against, 
539-541. 

Philaster,  Bishop  of  Brescia  (/.  380), 
on  heresies,  212. 

Philo  ( /?.  40),  his  allegorical  inter- 
pretations, 306-309,  311,  313. 

Philosophy,  Pagan,  contrasted  with 
Christianity,  164  ff.    Modern,  166. 

Phoenicians,  284. 

Photius  {Jl.  858),  135,  361,  547. 

"Pilate,  The  Acts  of,"  380-383  n. 

Pius,  Bishop  of  Rome  {d.  142), 
552. 

Plato,  169,  177,  182,  216,  268,  275, 
360,  367.  Quoted  by  Justin,  122. 
His  doctrine  of  pre-existence,  270. 
Impurity  in,  273.  Various  read- 
ings in,  419  n. 

Platonists,  The  later,  160,  166,  184, 
192,  268,  269,  271,  273.  Their  re- 
semblance to  some  German  meta- 
physicians, 182  n. 

Plautus,  Number  of  the  various  read- 
ings in,  419  n. 

Pleroma,  170, 174, 196,  290,  297,  327, 
334. 

Pliny  on  the  number  of  the  Chris- 
tians, 28. 

Plotinus  (/.  260),  a  theurgist,  192. 
On  the  Gnostics,  215-218. 

Plutarch  quoted,  280. 

Polycarp  (/.  108  ?),  his  Epistle  to  the 
Philippians,  3;  to  the  Corinthians, 
549.  A  disciple  of  St.  John,  87. 
The  story  about  St.  John  and  Ce- 
rinthus,  197.  His  supposed  men- 
tion of  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius, 
562. 

Porphyry  {jl.  270)  on  the  Gnostics 
215,  216.  On  licentiousness  and 
abstinence,  230. 

Person,  R.,  quoted,  453  n. 


580 


INDEX. 


Postel,  G.,  An  apocryphal  gospel 
discovered  by,  370-374. 

Pre-existence,  270,  273. 

Prices  of  books  in  the  lid  century, 
31  n. 

Priestley,  J.,  classed  by  Hahn  among 
Atheists,  178.  On  the  Apostolical 
Fathers,  546. 

Proclus  {d.  485),  280  n.  A  theurgist, 
192. 

Prodicus  (fl.  190),  Licentious  doc- 
trines of,  208  n.,  216,  228. 

Proselytes,  .Jewish,  107  n. 

JlpuToyevvTjfza,  Meaning  of,  82  n. 

Ptolemy  the  Valentinian  (/.  140), 
his  letter  to  Flora,  207.  His  opin- 
ion of  the  Jewish  law,  221,  296- 
298.  His  teaching,  227,  394.  His 
inconsistency,  297  n. 

Pythagoras,  270. 


Quotation,  Ancient  writers  inac- 
curate in,  119-121. 


Rabbis,  130,  514. 

Eandolph,  J.,  Bishop,  60  n. 

Rapin,  R.,  his  "  Gospel  of  the  Jansen- 
ists,"  344. 

Reason  and  intuition,  or  spiritual 
illumination,  as  sources  of  religious 
knowledge,  241,  290,  323,  335,  336. 

Received  Text  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, The,  characterized,  421. 

Revelation,  The  Book  of,  ascribed  by 
Justin  to  St.  John,  118;  by  Caius 
to  Cerinthus,  197. 

Revolutions  in  religion  usually  ac- 
companied by  excesses,  242. 

Rufinus  {fl.  390),  427. 


Sabbath,  134. 

Sais,  280  n. 

Same,  Divine  honors  paid  to  Epi- 
phanes  in,  269. 

Saturnilians,  206. 

Scioppius,  C.,  quoted,  344. 

Scythianus,  344  n. 

Semler,  J.  S.,  on  the  Apostolical 
Fathers,  546. 

Septuagint,  The,"  quoted  by  the 
Evangelists,  466. 

Serapion,  Bishop  of  Antioch  {fl.  190), 
on  the  "  Gospel  according  to  Pe- 
ter," 362-366. 

Serpent,  The,  how  regarded  by  the 


Ophians,  283-286.     A  symbol  of 

the  beneficent   power   in  nature, 

284. 
Seth  regarded  as  the  progenitor  of 

the  spiritual  among  men,  174  n., 

288. 
Sethians,  The,  not  a  sect,  174  n., 

288. 
Sike.  H.,  374. 
Simon  Magus  (Acts  viii.  9-24),  189- 

195,  299. 
Simonians,  220. 
Sophia  the  mother  of  the  Creator, 

285. 
Spirit,   The,  and    the    letter.      See 

Letter. 
Spiritual  illumination.     See  Reason. 
Stoics,  165. 
Strauss,  D.  F.,  on  the  miracles,  149. 

Quotes    the    apocryphal    gospels, 

379  n. 
Stroth,  F.  A,,  on  "  The  Memoirs  by 

the  Apostles,"  4.    Dissei'tation  by, 

115. 
Suetonius,  quoted,  559. 
Swedenborgianism,  322. 
Symmachus  the  Ebionite  {fl.  201) 

427. 


Talmud,  The,  cited,  486  n. 

Tatian  (/.  172),  The  Diatessnron  of, 
6,  32,  61,  62-,  124,  386,  394;  two 
hundred  copies  found  in  use  by 
Theodoret,  32 ;  said  not  to  be  de- 
rived from  the  Gospels  now  extant, 
61.  Does  not  mention  the  Gospels 
by  name,  124.  Of  the  school  of 
Valentinus,  227. 

Tennemann,  W.  G.,  quoted,  182  n. 

Terence,  Twenty  thousand  various 
readings  in,  418. 

Tertullian  (/.  200 ),  337, 343.  On  the 
number  of  the  Christians,  29.  His 
testimony  to  the  genuineness  of  the 
Gospels,  40.  On  the  Gnostics,  172, 
175,  183-185,  294.  Wrote  against 
Hermogenes,  186;  and  Praxeas, 
187.  Unlike  Origen,  186.  Be- 
comes a  Montanist,  187.  On  the 
Simonians,  195.  On  heresies,  196 
n.,  210.  Does  not  name  Cerinthus, 
198.  On  the  Valenti'nians,  207. 
On  the  Marcionites,  209,  210;  and 
their  morals,  225.  His  "Antidote 
against  Scorpions,"  257,  259.  His 
treatise  "  Concerning  Flight  in  Per- 
secution,** 259.    On  the  immoral- 


INDEX. 


581 


ity  of  the  Carpocratians,  274,  275. 
Does  not  notice  the  Ophians,  288 ; 
nor  the  Clementine  Homilies,  298. 
On  the  Gnostic  distinction  of  Jesus 
and  Christ,  290.  Regards  the  Logos 
as  the  God  of  the  Old  Testament, 
301-303.  On  "the  foolish  things 
of  the  world,"  304.  His  allegorical 
interpretations  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, 306  n.,  310, 311.  On  tradition, 
329.  On  St.  Paul,  332.  On  the 
Gnostic  disregard  of  the  Apostles, 
333.  Mentions  no  apocryphal  gos- 
pel, 345,  350.  Denies  the  virginity 
of  Mary  after  childbirth,  372,  Re- 
fers to  the  Acts  of  Pilate,  381  u. 
On  the  iMarcionites,  393,  396,  452. 
On  the  use  of  the  Gospels  by  here- 
tics, 404.  Analysis  of  his  "De 
Prsescriptione  Haereti coram,"  397- 
400.  Does  not  quote  Luke  xxii. 
43,  44;  455.  Refers  to  the  descent 
of  the  angel  at  the  pool  of  Bethes- 
da,  459.  On  the  sources  of  the 
Gospels  of  Mark  and  Luke,  498. 
On  the  Shepherd  of  Hernias,  551. 
Does  not  mention  the  Epistle  of 
Barnabas,  558;  nor  of  Ignatius, 
562. 

Tertullian,  The  Addition  to,  on  the 
Ophians,  283,  286.  On  the  Gospel 
of  Valentinus,  346-348. 

Tethians  a  misreading  for  Sethians, 
174. 

Thebes,  110. 

Theodas,  204,  328. 

Theodoret,  Bishop  of  Cyrus,  220  n., 
458  n.  Destroys  two  hundred 
copies  of  Tatian's  Diatessaron,  32, 
33,  386.  On  the  Gnostics,  174, 
213,  214.  On  the  Ophians,  283, 
286.  On  the  Gospel  of  Judas,  349. 
Mentions  no  gospel  of  the  Basi- 
lidians,  351. 

Theodotus  (/.  192),  208  n.,  221. 

Theophilus,  Bishop  of  Antioch  (j^. 
168),  quotes  the  Gospels,  74,  124. 

Theophylact  {fi.  1077),  356. 

Therapeutai,  their  allegorical  inter- 
pretations, 308. 

Iheurgy,  192. 


Thilo,  J.  C,  his  '*  Codex  Apocryphus 
Novi  Testamenti,"  341  n. 

Thomas,  The  Gospel  according  to, 
374,  379. 

Thucydides.  146, 

Tibullus,  Various  readings  in,  419  n 

Titus  Bostrensis,  356. 

Tradition,  A  secrpi,  its  need  asserted 
by  the  Gnos'.cp.,  327,  328.  De- 
fended by  Clei-ent,  329-331.  Ori- 
gin of  the  theory  of,  330. 

"  Traditions,  The,'"  360-362. 

Transcription  of  MSS.,  Errors  arising 
in,  44,  429,  450-^.52,  456. 

Trent,  The  Catecbi'jm  of  the  Council 
of,  quoted,  372  n. 

Typhon,  What  ia  symbolized  by,  280. 

Yalentinians,  The,  220,  228,  257. 
Charged  with  altering  the  Gospel 
history,  64.  Their  doctrines,  170- 
175,  204-209,  226,  227.  Their  at- 
tempts to  make  converts,  1 85.  Ac- 
count of,  206-209.  Divided  man- 
kind into  three  cla-sses,  221.  Their 
view  of  the  Old  Testament,  316. 
Used  no  apocrypl  i\  gospels,  343. 
The  gospel  ascribi>d  to,  by  Irenseus, 
346-348,  350. 

Valentinus  (jl.  120),  202,  209  n.,  214 
n.,  328,  398,  402-405.    Quoted,  227. 

Various  readings  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, their  character  and  impor- 
tance, 417-425. 

Vopiscus  quoted,  282. 


Wake,  W.,Archbp.,his  "Apostolical 

Fathers"  criticised,  546  n. 
Wetstein,  J.  J.,  quoted,  450  n. 
Whitby,  D.,  417. 


Xaviee,  J.,  his  history  of  Christ,  391 

n. 
Xenophon,  quoted  by  Justin,  122. 


Zokoaster,  Works  ascribed  to,  211 
n.,  216,  218. 


IKDEX    IL 


PASSAGES  OF  SCRIPTURE  ILLUSTRATED   OR  CITED. 


Page 

Gen.  ix.  4 235 

xvii.  12, 14 312 

Exod.  XV.  23-27 305 

Lev.  vi.  24-30 312 

xi.  14 312 

xvii.  10-13 235 

xxiii.  10-20 82 

Num.  xviii.  12,  13 82 

Deut.  xiv.  13 312 

xviii.  4 82 

1  Sam.  XV.  11 295 

xvi.  14 295 

2  Kings  i.  10-14 451 

Ps.  ci.  8 315 

cxxxvii.  8,  9 315 

Prov.  iv.  25,  26 75 

Isa.  xxiv.  16 359 

xxvii.  1 309 

xlv.  7 295 

Jer.  XV.  14 295 

Ezek.  XX.  11,  25 314 

Amos  iii.  6 295 

Mic.  i.  12 295 

Zech.  xi.  12,  13 440 

xiii.  7 466 

Matt,  i.-viii 422-425 

1.,  ii.     .     .     .     16,  79,  431-437 

i.  1-17 80 

i.  1 73 

iii.  15 129 

iv.  18-20 471 

V.  8 227 

10 9,  65 

17,18 242 

19,20 243 

23-26 531 

25 274 

28,  32 75 

vi.  13 48 

vii.  3-5,  16-18   ....  534 


Pagh 

Matt.  viii.  1-5 471 

1-4 470 

14-16      .     .     .       604,  505 
16-ix.  26     ....     470 

16,  18 471 

ix.  1-8 467-469 

1 471 

9-17 482-484 

X 471 

24 534 

26-28 530 

xi.  12 536 

27 136 

xii.  22-37       .     .     .       472,  538 

33 534 

34,  35 535 

38 538 

40       .     .     .      17,  442,  443 

43-45 538 

46-50       .     .     .       472,  507 

xiii.  1,  53 521 

54-58 472 

XV.  14 534 

xvii.  14-21    ....  479-482 

xviii.  23-35 533 

xix.  4-8 296 

19 41,  44 

xxi.  18  ff. 476 

xxiii.  13-39 539 

xxiv.  1-51 529 

10-12 249 

XXV.  14-30 529 

xxvi.  31 466 

xxvii.  3-10    .     .      17,  437-441 
52-53       .     17,  441,  442 

xxviii.  2 80 

Mark  i.  1-3 73 

11 6 

16-18 471 

29-34     ....       604,505 


INDEX. 


Mark  i  40—45 

Page 
...  470 

ii  1  22  ... 

...  470 

1     ... 

...  471 

1-12   .  .  . 
14-22  .  .  . 
iii.  11,  23-30   . 
16,17   .  . 
31-35   .  . 
iv  1-32  .  .  . 

.  467-469 
.  482-484 
...  472 
...  118 
.  472,  507 
.  .  .  521 

21,  22   .  . 
•   35-v.  43  .  . 

35  ...  . 
vi.  1-6   ... 

3  .  .  .  . 

...  530 
...  470 
.  471,  477 
...  472 
.  .  79,  127 

.  .  .  296 

ix.  14-29 .  .  . 
X.  50  .  .  .  . 

.  479-482 
...   41 

xi  12-14,  20  ff. 
xiii  3  .  .  .  . 

...  477 
.  .  .  529 

xiv  27   .  .  . 

...  466 

xvi  5  .  .  .  . 

...   SO 

9-20   .  . 

Luke  i.  1-4  .  .  .  . 

1  .  .•  .  .  . 

5-ii.  52  .  .  . 

9 

17,  443-449 
.  497,  512 
.  351,  388 
...  49 
...   73 

31  32  .  .  . 

...  115 

li.  7   .... 

.  .  .  127 

39  ...  . 

.  .  .  434 

iii.  22  .  .  .  . 

23-38  .  .  . 
iv.  16-30  .  .  . 

...  128 
.  80,  432  fF. 
...  472 

38-41  .  .  . 
V.  1-11   .   .   . 

.  504,  505 
...  471 

12-15  .  .  . 
12  ...  . 
16,  17  .  .  . 
17-39  .  .  . 

...  470 
.  471, 522 
...  471 
...  470 

17-26  .  .  . 
17  ...  . 

.  467-469 
...  517 

27-39  .  .  . 

vi.  12-49  .  .  . 

39-45  .  .  . 

viii.  4-21  .  .  . 

16-18   .  . 

19-21   .  . 

22-56   .  . 

22   .  .  . 

.  482-484 
...  471 
...  534 
...  521 
...  531 
.  472,  507 
...  470 
...  471 

ix.  16  .  .  .  . 
37-43  .  .  . 
51,  52  .  .  . 

...  464 
.  479-482 
.  .  .  472 

55,  56  .  .  . 
X.  22  ...  . 

18,  449-454 
...  303 

3S  .  .  .  . 

...  472 

xi  14  23 

472 

24-26  .  .  . 

...  539 

29,  30  ,  .  . 
87-52  .  .  . 

...  443 
...  640 

683 

Page 
'  531 
79 

529 
532 
477 
472 


Luke  xii.  1-5     .... 

24,  27      .     .     . 

xii.  35-48       .     .     . 

56,  59      .     .     . 

xiii.  6-9     .... 

22      .... 

31,  32 472 

34,  35 54") 

xvi.  1-18 53i 

xvii.  11 472 

22-37 529 

xviii.  12 486 

xix.  11-27 529 

xxi.  5-36 529 

end 48 

xxii.  43,  44    .     .      17,  454-458 

44 118 

xxiv.  4 80 

i.  1-3 73,  75 

14,  20 134 

iii.  3,  4 135 


John 


28 


534 

534 

80 

516 


...  134 
V.  3,  4  .     .     .     .      17,  458-460 

17 135 

vii.  53-viii.  11    .     .       460,  461 

xii   17,  18 516 

xiii.  16       .... 

XV.  20 

XX.  12.27       .     .     . 
xxi.  10,  11     .     .     . 

24,  25      .     .     17,  461,  462 

Acts  i.  18,  19 439 

26 328 

iv.  36 517 

vi.  1  flf.,  9 518 

5 253 

viii.  9-24 190 

ix.  29 518 

xiii.  33 128 

XV.  1 199 

7 234 

10 236 

28,  29  .     .     .     .       230,  234 

xix.  19        33 

xxi.  20,  21   .  .  .   156,  426 

...  518 

.  .  .  238 

...  239 

...  237 

.  .  .  236 

...  551 

...  304 

...  328 

.  .  .  323 

...  235 

...  234 

...  233 

...  233 


xxn.  z    .  . 

Rom.  iv.  5      .  . 

vi.  1     .  . 

viii.  14,  15 

21  . 

xvi.  14 

1  Cor.  i.  27,  28  . 

ii.  6     .  . 

14   .  . 

viii.  1 

4,10 

7  . 

X.  7.  8  . 


584 


INDEX. 


1  Cor.  X.  20,  21 

XV.  12 

2  Cor.   .     .     . 

ii.  17   . 
iii.  6    . 

17 

xi.  7,  12,  20-22 
13,  15 
Gal.  i.  18  . 
iii.  3 
iv.  3-9 
V.  1   . 
4,13, 
19 
Eph.  i.  23 

iii.  19 

Phil.  iv.  3 

Col.  i.  19  . 

ii.  9    . 

iv.  11 

14 

1  Tim.  iii.  16 


19-21 


Page 
234 
244 
244 
245 
314 
236 
246 
245 
517 
237 
237 
236 
238 
238,  314 
174 
174 
548 
174 
174 
107 
90 
165 


Pagk 

1  Tim.  vi  3-10 247 

2  Tim.  ii.  14-23 250 

iii.  1-9 249 

iv.  11 90 

Titus  i.  10,  11 246 

Philem.  24 90 

Heb.  i.  5 128 

V.  5 128 

James  ii.  14  ff. 239 

1  Pet.  ii.  16 239 

V.  13 82 

2  Pet.  ii.  1,  12,  13,  19       ...  251 

3,  15 252 

1  John  i.  1-3 512 

1 360 

ii.  19,  22 203 

iv.  2,  3 202 

V.  7 23,  421 

Jude4,  10,  12,  19 251 

11 252,349 

Rev.  ii.  6,  14,  15     .  •  .    .    .    .  262 


THE    END. 


Cambridge :  Press  of  John  Wilson  <fc  Son. 


Date  Due 

' 

MR  24 '54 

■ 

6r 

w^^m 

\!^^^^ 

- 

>'  ttMtf''''^'^^^^^'''^*tiMltK 

mBP^ ' 

- 

•  ! 

f) 

